Bullsh!t. It's likely that we'd have ended up in WWI regardless of who won in 1916. And it's also likely that American post-war foreign policy wouldn't have been too much different from what it turned out to be (i.e., isolationist).
And of course, there's the fallacious reasoning that only American influences led to the rise of Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Japanese Imperialism, and the second World War that resulted from these expansionist regimes.
Quite possibly - because of our actions since the war began. Some of our large banks were loaning money to the Allies and would not have much of a chance of getting repaid if they lost. Also we had munitions factories supplying rifle and artillery ammo to the Allies in large quanites - all while we were "neutral".
>fallacious reasoning that only American influences led to the rise of Nazism, Fascism, Communism, and Japanese Imperialism, and the second World War.
Well if America were not factored into the W.W.I equation at all things most definitely would have worked out differently. Even with American aid the Allies were at a stalemate by mid war. I will forget the possibility that our aid might have kept them from losing, that's arguable. What is not arguable is that there was a stalemate and terms would have had to come about except for the fact that the Allies had hope in US intervention on their side therefore stiffening their resolve against peace at that time. If peace had been negotiated in 1916 or 17 the European monarchies all would have been maintained. The chaos, revolution, stripped territories, border disputes, etc. that set the stage for W.W.II would not have occurred. Trotsky would have ended up a professor at New York City College and Lenin would have remained a crank in Switzerland living nicely off of writing polemics against capitalism and the Czar. No matter how one figures it US meddling with and entry into that conflict had dire consequences. The outcome could not have been what it was without the US in the equation. Would there have been future conflict in Europe? most likely as there is historic president for it but there would have been no Soviet Russia, no communist revolution in Germany and elsewhere, no Nazi Party, etc. Whatever outcome of W.W.I without the US it would not have been anywhere near as horrible as what came about because we interfered and tipped a balance.
Re: Japanese imperialism. True that can not be blamed on W.W.I. In fact the only reason Japan fought with the Allies was to have a "legitimate" excuse to grab German colonies. But if Britain and France had not been bled white in the 1st World War they would have been in better position to deal with the Japanese. Also with Hitler's maneuverings in Europe (made possible by W.W.I) England was not able to deal with the European crisis and the Pacific one simultaneously. Please note that the British were content to sit back and let the US take the lead in pre-WWII efforts to stem the Japanese. Now I could ask why it was up to us to do anything at all or what we were doing with possessions in the Pacific in the first place but I'll leave that for another discussion.