WWI if the USA never existed?

[DougM]

Ok lets run this down
The 13 lose and stay part of England.
Immigration is reasonably high but not anything like OTL as England is not as attractive nor immigrants as a free US.
France is financially is screwed as OTL so that happens much as OTL.
GB gets all the French territory most likly as part of some treaty.
GB gets all of Spains territory (not Mexico) one way or another.
Russia sells Alaska to GB. So GB ends up with most of North America minus Mexico/Texas. Texas probably does not win its independence as GB was much more restrictive on settlers moving into areas that they shouldnt. So less folks moving into Texas,

So with a smaller Area then OTL US and with less population the US wont be as economically significant as OTL but will still be powerfull.

GB wont put up with the civil war nonsense when it outlaws slavery so that is a plus as that means less loss of live and property so that will help.

On the other hand if France pushes Mexico then GB may get in a war and get Texas and California and what have you from that.

one way or the other This means that ultimately North America by the late 1800s North America is the jewell in the English Crown not India. Interestingly we may see a larger population of Irish and. Indians moving to North America during hard times in those countries. I also think that Australia is adversely effected as well North America is more attractive for Folks from GB itself and Europe if for no other reason then that it is closer and easier to ship things to and from.

So now we get to the Great War.
First we have issues with Why GB will get involved. For example the Naval Arms race with Germany is NOT going to happen. With North America in GB hands and with the wealth and industry from North America This means Germany has NO chance to stand ip to the Royal Navy.
The question then is if GB will sign a treaty to protect Belgium. As Noted GB controls much of. Africa, India, and basically all of NA. It does not need to worry all that much about who is in charge in Europe nor does it need Belgiam to be independent to help keep the English channel as the Royal Navy would squash any other navy like a bug.
So in truth i doubt that GB would get involved. At least to start. I tgink it would stay out and sell supplies and weapons and food to Russia and France (assuming they dont side with Germany against France, hard to say)

Germany…assuming that Germany exists This Germany will be better armed with a bigger army as it will not have much if any navy as this worlds RN is so overwhelming that Germany will not be able to compete at all so wont waste the money on a big surface fleet. It may build raiders and or try outvthe new fangled Subs . So i suspect that France is screwed as Germany will have a bigger better army (a little bigger) and odds are GB stays out so good chance that Germany pushes into Paris and France falls, or at least its government topples.
So lets assume Germany is in Paris but has to stop as it needs to turn to face Russia. This lets France form a new Government that continues to fight (unlikly but.. if we want a war)

So this brings us to a method of GB entering the war. Assuming Germany builds some experimental subs it could try to use these subs to limit shipping or maybe a Sub Skipper takes matters into there own hand and sinks a British ship, Ass in that GB has loaned money to France and France is about to collapse and GB enters the war.
Now once it gears up its military amd builds an Army from North America and gets it to France Germany is screwed.

But in truth this will never happen as the butterflies will eliminate the war as we know it.

 

[Gillan1220]

This OP is kind of like: What if Hitler had a time machine and saw that Germany was going to run low on fuel, so Germany invented nuclear power in the 1930s to run their synthetic oil facilities. The wider implication of the POD dwarf the intended changes the OP sets out to achieve.

I remember back then in 2019, one user asked a question on Alternate History Online: "What would a Roman Empire that survived all the way to World War II look like? I don't mean the Holy Roman Empire, I mean the original Empire."

Everyone had to explain to him the about the butterfly effect.

 

[CalBear]

How would WWI have ended if the USA never existed in the first place because the American Revolution either never happened or failed? So we probably have a bigger Mexico that never lost California, Texas etc. to the US either a spanish or french speaking Lousiana country or Lousiana was turned into a british colony or was given to the 13 colonies.

Let's say european history from 1776 is basically the same with napoleonic wars, 1848, german and italian unification and the july crisis. So WWI starts and goes on for several years. The main differences would be:

- Germany would have started unrestricted submarine warfare already in 1915 due to the US doesnt exist and they dont have to fear the USA joining the Allies? And a smaller TTL USA/13 colonies is still part of the british empire as a dominion so a smaller weaker US like Australia and Canada sending troops to europe?

- Less money for the allies due to them becoming almost bankrupt IOTL and with less money due to no american loans especially after 1917 when the US joined the allies?

- Germany wins due to no giant American aid saving the allies?

- Or the CP loose due to maybe a successful brusilov offensive or whatever. How would the peace treaties have looked like without the US being a part of the allies?

The simple truth is that a world where the U.S. never developed would be so vastly different from OTL that you can project any outcome and be in a position to defend it.

The American Revolution and the mere existence of the United States utterly changed to trajectories of ALL of Europe's Great Powers, almost before the smoke cleared. Beyond the obvious impact of Britain losing its most lucrative captive market and an amazingly diverse source of raw materials (the RN had to scramble to find new sources for masts and risers, to give one small example, after access to the American forests was lost) was perhaps matched by the enormous drain of the French Treasury from its heavy support of the Revolution. While it certainly can not be proven, the success of the American Revolution provided a touchstone for other New World colonies, especially across New Spain and in Brazil, to make similar efforts toward self determination. The Revolution in France was, according to those who led the initial effort, directly inspired by the American Revolution. The success of the Colonies against the world's leading military power, inspired others, simply by showing it was possible (yes it was very much not simply a bunch of American farmers with squirrel rifles that tossed the Crown's forces out, but the idea that this was the case proved to be a heady wine indeed).

There would almost certainly not BE a Napoleon of any historical note as there would unlikely be any Revolution wreckage that would allow him to emerge. Probably wouldn't be an Australia as we know it. Way cheaper to transport undesirables across the Atlantic than clear to the ether end of the planet.

One can not take a piece as large as the United States, be seen as a positive or a negative (or both) and expect anything to be the same. Forget butterflies, this sort of change introduces eagles the size of B-52s.

 

[Gillan1220]

The simple truth is that a world where the U.S. never developed would be so vastly different from OTL that you can project any outcome and be in a position to defend it.

The American Revolution and the mere existence of the United States utterly changed to trajectories of ALL of Europe's Great Powers, almost before the smoke cleared. Beyond the obvious impact of Britain losing its most lucrative captive market and an amazingly diverse source of raw materials (the RN had to scramble to find new sources for masts and risers, to give one small example, after access to the American forests was lost) was perhaps matched by the enormous drain of the French Treasury from its heavy support of the Revolution. While it certainly can not be proven, the success of the American Revolution provided a touchstone for other New World colonies, especially across New Spain and in Brazil, to make similar efforts toward self determination. The Revolution in France was, according to those who led the initial effort, directly inspired by the American Revolution. The success of the Colonies against the world's leading military power, inspired others, simply by showing it was possible (yes it was very much not simply a bunch of American farmers with squirrel rifles that tossed the Crown's forces out, but the idea that this was the case proved to be a heady wine indeed).

There would almost certainly not BE a Napoleon of any historical note as there would unlikely be any Revolution wreckage that would allow him to emerge. Probably wouldn't be an Australia as we know it. Way cheaper to transport undesirables across the Atlantic than clear to the ether end of the planet.

One can not take a piece as large as the United States, be seen as a positive or a negative (or both) and expect anything to be the same. Forget butterflies, this sort of change introduces eagles the size of B-52s.

The American Revolution would set many butterflies towards almost everything in the Western world.

The OP's POD is vague. What does he mean no United States? Did the American Revolution get crushed or did it simply not exist? Or if one were to go a more "recent" POD as one user pointed out, the McKinley assassination caused the U.S. to become a failed state. My suggestion for this scenario is that the CSA and the USA never reunified so there is no Reconstruction and there are two Americas in the continent.

A POD of 130-150 years would make 1914 and beyond look unrecognizable.

 

[SodaMan1996]

The simple truth is that a world where the U.S. never developed would be so vastly different from OTL that you can project any outcome and be in a position to defend it.

The American Revolution and the mere existence of the United States utterly changed to trajectories of ALL of Europe's Great Powers, almost before the smoke cleared. Beyond the obvious impact of Britain losing its most lucrative captive market and an amazingly diverse source of raw materials (the RN had to scramble to find new sources for masts and risers, to give one small example, after access to the American forests was lost) was perhaps matched by the enormous drain of the French Treasury from its heavy support of the Revolution. While it certainly can not be proven, the success of the American Revolution provided a touchstone for other New World colonies, especially across New Spain and in Brazil, to make similar efforts toward self determination. The Revolution in France was, according to those who led the initial effort, directly inspired by the American Revolution. The success of the Colonies against the world's leading military power, inspired others, simply by showing it was possible (yes it was very much not simply a bunch of American farmers with squirrel rifles that tossed the Crown's forces out, but the idea that this was the case proved to be a heady wine indeed).

There would almost certainly not BE a Napoleon of any historical note as there would unlikely be any Revolution wreckage that would allow him to emerge. Probably wouldn't be an Australia as we know it. Way cheaper to transport undesirables across the Atlantic than clear to the ether end of the planet.

One can not take a piece as large as the United States, be seen as a positive or a negative (or both) and expect anything to be the same. Forget butterflies, this sort of change introduces eagles the size of B-52s.

There's also the fact that, without Napoleon, the HRE continues to exist after 1806.

Napoleon dissolved the HRE and replaced it with the Confederation of the Rhine, and he also reduced the number of kingdoms and city-states from over 300 down to over 30. The Confederation of the Rhine was replaced with the German Confederation after Napoleon was defeated, but the simplified borders remained. This would eventually set the stage for the unification of Germany in the early 1870s.

Also, the Congress of Vienna was more or less an attempt to bring Europe back to the pre-1789 order. Over the next few decades, there was a growing backlash against the reactionary governments that ruled post-1815 Europe. This culminated in a wave of revolutions in 1848. While most of the revolutions were suppressed, they showed that liberalism was a force to be reckoned with.

It's like you said, it cannot be understated just how influential the American Revolution really was.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

This either needs extraordinary events in the very early 1900s [1] or slightly more believable events pre 1900.

There are several possible places for it (writers' forum, pre1900, and maybe even ASB) but post1900 doesn't look right.

[1] Teddy Rooseveldt physically tearing the states into several subcontinents would work, or -slightly more likely - a severe thrashing by Mexico that destabilises the government and triggers local insurrections or threatens a wider second civil war

 

[sarahz]

How would WWI have ended if the USA never existed in the first place because the American Revolution either never happened or failed? So we probably have a bigger Mexico that never lost California, Texas etc. to the US either a spanish or french speaking Lousiana country or Lousiana was turned into a british colony or was given to the 13 colonies.

Let's say european history from 1776 is basically the same with napoleonic wars, 1848, german and italian unification and the july crisis. So WWI starts and goes on for several years. The main differences would be:

- Germany would have started unrestricted submarine warfare already in 1915 due to the US doesnt exist and they dont have to fear the USA joining the Allies? And a smaller TTL USA/13 colonies is still part of the british empire as a dominion so a smaller weaker US like Australia and Canada sending troops to europe?

- Less money for the allies due to them becoming almost bankrupt IOTL and with less money due to no american loans especially after 1917 when the US joined the allies?

- Germany wins due to no giant American aid saving the allies?

- Or the CP loose due to maybe a successful brusilov offensive or whatever. How would the peace treaties have looked like without the US being a part of the allies?

hmm the First World war may not occur because butterflies or because frankly a British empire including most of North America is too strong to be challenged by a mere European power.

 

[Lalli]

hmm the First World war may not occur because butterflies or because frankly a British empire including most of North America is too strong to be challenged by a mere European power.

Or if it does it would be completely unrecognsible for us.

 

[Lusitania]

I recently read that the Mayflower ship carried 27 families to the 13 colonies and today over 30 million people are descendants from those 27 families. Therefore as some have stated the world would be completely different and to suggest there be a WW1 and WW2 defies understanding about impact of a monumental event as to the absence of the US.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

It's hard to avoid the USA completely, not so hard to avoid USA as we know it.

One possibility could be a weaker federation, essentially the colonies accept. unified leadership fighting for liberation that either don't formally unify at all or don't all unify after independence from Britain.

The other possibility is to have only some of the colonies fight for liberation. I don't know if it's possible to apply a reasonable tweak that has any colonies pro-British or neutral. My suspicion is that these would need to be bordering Canada so that they could join Canada after or during the fighting.

Either of these could create an environment in which expansion creates new autonomous states and federations which don't unify. This may leave Louisiana, Alaska, Texas and Hawai'i to achieve their own form of independence one day, while creating opportunities for indigenous states to form and maybe an independent version of Utah.

The other (possibly more common) approach is to assume a divided country after one or more civil wars, which redraws some boundaries and leads to a few newly independent states who won't have anything to do with the battered participants during or after. That doesn't prevent formation of USA (although it could happen in a never-USA scenario), but does remove it before WW1 while leaving a possibility that the world is enough like OTL to allow an alt-WW1 to occur at the right technological, political and economic concurrence.

 

[Evil Crusader]

I remember back then in 2019, one user asked a question on Alternate History Online: "What would a Roman Empire that survived all the way to World War II look like? I don't mean the Holy Roman Empire, I mean the original Empire."

Everyone had to explain to him the about the butterfly effect.

It's not "just" the butterfly effect.
We understandably are so shaped by our history (and historiography) that it's not trivial reframing our thought processes to accept ATL doesn't necessarily have our same watershed moments and the wide consequences those compound changes have.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

How would WWI have ended if the USA never existed in the first place because the American Revolution either never happened or failed? So we probably have a bigger Mexico that never lost California, Texas etc. to the US either a spanish or french speaking Lousiana country or Lousiana was turned into a british colony or was given to the 13 colonies.

Let's say european history from 1776 is basically the same with napoleonic wars, 1848, german and italian unification and the july crisis. So WWI starts and goes on for several years. The main differences would be:

- Germany would have started unrestricted submarine warfare already in 1915 due to the US doesnt exist and they dont have to fear the USA joining the Allies? And a smaller TTL USA/13 colonies is still part of the british empire as a dominion so a smaller weaker US like Australia and Canada sending troops to europe?

- Less money for the allies due to them becoming almost bankrupt IOTL and with less money due to no american loans especially after 1917 when the US joined the allies?

- Germany wins due to no giant American aid saving the allies?

- Or the CP loose due to maybe a successful brusilov offensive or whatever. How would the peace treaties have looked like without the US being a part of the allies?

The "US" would probably be smaller and weaker than IOTL (Britain might not go to war with Mexico, for example), but it would still be bigger and stronger than Canada or Australia, and the areas which a British US would be most likely to incorporate (the East Coast and Midwest) are also some of the most economically and demographically important areas of OTL's US. It's also worth pointing out that IOTL the US didn't mobilise its full strength for the war, because Germany ended up surrendering before that could happen. So I think on the whole the Allies would do better with the extra resources of a British US helping them from day 1 -- probably the Central Powers seek a negotiated peace, but if they don't, I think the war would end in 1916 or early 1917.

However, I find it completely implausible to imagine that European history would go anything like it did for 150 years if there is no USA. For example, why would you expect the French Revolution to occur, and to result in the rise of Napoleon if you do not have the American Revolution as an example of a successful example of a liberal revolution. For that matter, why would you expect to have a Mexico (larger or otherwise) rather than have New Spain remain in some way affiliated with the Spanish crown.

That's not as hard as people seem to imagine -- just have the AR start like IOTL but get defeated (probably resulting in some kind of compromise peace in which the Colonies remain part of the Empire but get representation in Parliament, or similar), the fact that the French govt has poured money into supporting the rebels without success ends up discrediting the Bourbons, and a revolution ensues. Then have Napoleon come to power, invade Europe, etc., leading to the spread of liberalism, the rise of German and Italian nationalism, and the fatal weakening of the Spanish Empire.

Does a British Empire with the resources of North America even care that much about who is the hegemon of mainland Europe in this scenario? Whilst the European powers will very much care on whose side the Empire is.

We had a thread a while back, and the consensus was that the British capital would remain in London, even if the Thirteen Colonies never got independence, so I think the Empire would want to stop the creation of a hegemonic European state just across the Channel from its centre of government.

Though as crazy as Wilhelmine Germany is, I can't see it actually wanting to go to war with TTL's mega British Empire. The most likely scenario I can see for a "WW1" situation would be Germany violating Belgian neutrality under the expectation that Britain wouldn't get involved, then having an "Oh s**t" moment and seeking a negotiated peace when Britain does join in. TTL's "WW1" therefore remains a brief, limited war in the late-19th-century vein, rather than a shocking and devastating bloodbath.

 

[Moctezuma1466]

This OP is kind of like: What if Hitler had a time machine and saw that Germany was going to run low on fuel, so Germany invented nuclear power in the 1930s to run their synthetic oil facilities. The wider implication of the POD dwarf the intended changes the OP sets out to achieve.

dont exagerate. i just asked theoretical question not like genghis khan inventing time machines and conquering the world in 2024

 

[Beatriz]

B_Munro made a map about this

 

[DougM]

I guess the question is.. (as others have noted) what is it the OP wants? As with this much time and that big a POD you can justify almost any thing. Do you want WW1 with no American continent input (North or south) or do you want a GB that includes most of North America…

Either is possible.As is a countless other number of outcomes. But as noted it will be a much different world and you are going yo get different sides involved in the war.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I guess the question is.. (as others have noted) what is it the OP wants? As with this much time and that big a POD you can justify almost any thing. Do you want WW1 with no American continent input (North or south) or do you want a GB that includes most of North America…

He says that the *US is still part of the British Empire, which suggests they will be involved, much as Canada, Australia and New Zealand were.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Honestly considering the picture the OP is painting, the better question OP might have asked is: WWI if the USA never got involved in any capacity. Since that's really what's being asked. And that's arguably a post-1900 POD.

Alternatively, it's a more outlandish question: WWI if the British Empire still had direct uninhibited access to all of America's resources. But even then the question remains of how much of America remains in British hands and to what degree (by WWI, of course, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were all practically independent with some exception to foreign policy, and had their own seats at the peace table, cementing their place as independent states post-war, "dominion" status be damned).