No. And I've read enough accounts of WWI to know that a) there's no one view on it; and b) there is a pretty good across-the-spectrum historical concensus on many aspects of it.
If you are under the illusion that the United States was neutral up until entry in 1917, then how can we have a serious conversation about neutrality?
No. The discussion of WWI came up tangentially, as part of a discussion of how the USSR came into being. Bottom line is, we did not prevent the rise of the USSR, and our involvement in WWI had no bearing on Germany's defeat of Russia.
Secondly, the myth of 1930s Europe and the employment so many government line of super natural powers to see what might have been is borderline absurd.
It's no myth. Many people, such as Churchill, and H. R. Knickerbocker here in the U.S., early on recognized and warned against the dangers posed by Germany, and advocated strong measures against Hitler. The British and French governments also recognized the threat, even if they chose not to deal properly with the problem.
Hitler was a moderate in Germany; the British and French wanted him in power rather than a conservative monarchist who would have behaved more rationally at the top of the German state. To topple Germany in the '30s would have been to invite military rule or Communist rule.
This is utterly ridiculous.