This can't be entirely a coincidence...

That place we can't link to but which hosts a yearly convention of moonbats. | 08/06/2007 | Philistone

[Philistone]

This is the third time I've run across this argument on some moonbat chat board in the last few weeks:

The most likely outcome of World War I sans our misguided participation would have been a stalemate with both sides exhausted from 5 years of trench warfare. The rise of Hitler and Mussolini probably would have been precluded. Thus there never would have been a second world war.

Playing with counterfactuals is always pointless as no logical conclusion can ever be drawn from them (since, by definition, one of the premises is false).

Despite the lack of historical or even philisophical rationale, these arguments keep popping up. Is this the way American History is being taught these days?

[NVDave]

More than a German victory, it might have stalled or precluded the end of the Ottoman Empire. The middle east would be completely different, with a vastly different map, if the Ottoman Empire had endured.

[wideawake]

The most likely outcome of World War I sans our misguided participation would have been a stalemate with both sides exhausted from 5 years of trench warfare.

This is an old "America Firster" argument for isolationism.

The reality is that Germany would likely have conquered France and become a hostile superpower equal in size, wealth and technology to the USA.

The original alliance was France-England-Russia versus Germany and Austria.

By 1917, England was close to exhaustion, Russia was having its own internal revolution and German forces were 70 miles from Paris, shelling the city with long-range guns.

If America hadn't reinforced the crumbling British and French lines, Paris could well have been swept by Germany's 1918 spring offensive in April 1918, giving Germany a decisive victory.

Mussolini's Italy was one of the winning parties in World War I.

The idiot who wrote this is complaining that Germany's defeat fueled fascism in Germany - why did Italy's victory fail to stop fascism in Italy?

[gridlock]

It is pointless to wrestle a pig in the mud because you just get yourself dirty, and after a while you figure out that the pig is enjoying it.

[taxcontrol]

This line of speculation is not supported by history (something libs like to ignore). The simple fact is that wars are repeated through history ... the sole exception being when one side gets whacked so hard that they decide it is better to give up ... accept unconditional surrender ... even slavery /or/ the losing side is eradicated.

Until there is a CLEAR winner and loser, the war will continue on, pause for a while, and continue again at a later date.

Had WWI resulted in stalemate, the Germans would have had a net gain of territory and there would have been a time of “peace” during which both sides would have built bigger and badder weapons to ultimately resolve the conflict.

Hmmm, sounds a lot like WWII.

[Badeye]

Obviously I meant 1860.

[BenLurkin]

Hitler would not have come to power.

On the other hand Germany might have won.

The big questions are 1) what would have become of the Bolsheviks (we were going to have to fight them sooner or later) and 2) Would the British Empire have survived.

[wideawake]

There would not have been a WW II.

Yes there would have.

Had Germany won WWI, they would still not have been able to crush England.

They would have conquered France, concluded peace with England and then waited until the moment was right to go after England again.

[vpintheak]

Ignore the obvious and rational, focus in on speculation and conjecture, try to argue your rediculous point as fact. Typical lieberal regressive thought process.

[Ingtar]

I do a lot of historical gaming. The idea that the USA made little difference in either war and that the USSR would have won regardless is very prevalent, especially in Europe. They even tend to beef up the USSR for WWII games to match the moonbats’ expectations.

One thing you should be able to bring up on WWI: The Second Battle of the Marne turned on the use of USA troops. Without the US divisions, the Germans would not likely have been stopped. The subsequent TE assaults relied heavily on US soldiers.

[dmz]

Oops, the song is ‘touch of grey’, not shades of grey.

Oh well a touch of grey, kinda suits you anyway,
Thats all I had to say, but its all right
I will get by, I will get by, I will get by, I will survive.

[bajabaja]

The lodestar of their argument is always this: Whatever war America participated in, it did so with only base motives to oppress and exploit other peoples. With that any argument can have its facts conveniently adjusted or ignored. You will also hear “imperialism” when somebody wishes to show how much Marxist scholarship they understand. I don’t argue with them, I poke fun. If they get angry I show some pictures I have of what American teenagers had to die for in order to stop.

[Philistone]

Wasn’t pig wrestling, promise. Just enjoying my daily allowance of moonbat follies...

[Ancesthntr]

I'm curious to know how the Moonbats make all of the consequences (real or imagined) of America's entry into WWI ... wait for it ... its coming ... drum roll ...

BUSH'S FAULT!

[Ramius]

The reality is that Germany would likely have conquered France and become a hostile superpower equal in size, wealth and technology to the USA.

I wonder if Germany wouldn't have actually been the ~lone~ superpower. The USA didn't really achieve "superpower" status until after WWII. Had there been no participation in WWI and no WWII there would have been no massive buildup of ships and materiel and men.

It may be imponderable, but there's a real possibility that the big superpowers of the 20th Century would have been Germany and Japan. Not sure how that would have played out.

[Sherman Logan]

This has been going on a long time. If you really want to hear alternative history arguments, hang out on the threads where the WBTS gets chewed over.

To some, if the South had won the war, only good things would have resulted. The US would now be a libertarian/conservative paradise, with no welfare state or socialism. World history in the 20th would have been no different, with both fascism and communism being defeated despited what is now the US divided and perhaps even on opposite sides in world conflicts.

Of course, whether you talk WWI, WBTS, Vietnam or any other conflict, there are lots of other possible outcomes, some perhaps worse than what actually did happen. But few ever want to talk about those.

[x]

I heard that Winston Churchill said as much in an article he wrote in the 1930s.

Of course, back during the war, he'd been as desperate as anyone else in the British government to get American help, so the argument doesn't reflect well on Winston.

I suppose it's as valid as any other counterfactual argument. But the problem is that it relies too much on hindsight, on information one couldn't have had at the time.

[Polybius]

...... the likely outcome of World War I would have been a German victory. Once they took Russia out of the war, the troops from the Eastern Front would have been available to go after the British and French.

It is not a matter of "would have". The German did transfer nearly 60 divisions from the Eastern Front to the Western Front after the Russian capitulation in 3 March 1918.

The resulting German offensive from 21 March to 18 July 1918 still stalled at a time when America had not yet made its weight felt on the battlefield.

1918 Spring Offensive or Kaiserschlacht

The offensive left the Germans exahusted and their territorial gains worked against them as the gains created salients that were difficult to defend.

[badgerlandjim]

By that line of reasoning there would never have been an American Revolutionary War and our citizens would have been conscripted by our rulers, Great Britain, to fight in WWI.

[JamesP81]

It was the Treaty of Versailles which led to the economic disaster that enabled Hitler’s rise.

Indeed, and the US knew that treaty was a bad thing. That's why we never became a party to it. The Senate refused to ratify it, and politicians of the day knew that the result would be another war.

[Philistone]

Not sure how that would have played out.

Undoubtedly the way that the Germans and Japanese intended it to before WWII, with Japan in charge of The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and Germans in charge of Western Europe and Britain's colonies in the Middle East.