Grok says:
That’s a tough one to pin down definitively—history doesn’t give us a clean “what if” to test. Staying out of World War I could’ve kept the U.S. from losing around 116,000 soldiers and spending billions, preserving resources and lives for domestic priorities like infrastructure or industry. The war boosted America’s global clout—joining late and tipping the scales helped make it a creditor nation and set the stage for the 20th-century “American Century.” Without that, Europe might’ve slogged on longer, maybe ending in a stalemate or a harsher German-led order, leaving the U.S. less influential and the world messier.
On the flip side, neutrality might’ve avoided the messy Versailles Treaty, which Wilson pushed for but couldn’t control—arguably planting seeds for WWII. Staying out could’ve kept America’s focus inward, dodging the wartime overreach (think Espionage Act, Sedition Act) that curbed freedoms and fueled domestic unrest. Some argue the Progressive Era might’ve kept rolling without the war’s disruptions, though others say the economic boom from wartime production wouldn’t have happened either.
Economist Robert Higgs suggests war often locks in bad policies—like centralized control—that linger long after. Neutrality might’ve dodged that trap. But isolationists like Henry Cabot Lodge worried a German win would’ve threatened U.S. security down the line, especially if Kaiser Wilhelm’s ambitions went unchecked.
It’s a coin toss with big stakes either way. Shorter term, staying out looks appealing—fewer deaths, less debt. Longer term, joining might’ve shaped a world where America had more say, for better or worse. What do you think—any angle you’re leaning toward?
