Following the end of WW1, President Warren G. Harding was elected and promised a 'return to normalcy', which in effect turned America isolationist. So what if kill of Harding, or change the outcome of the election and set America down a different political course without isolationism? How would America and the world react? How would if effect the inevitable Second World War?
No rise of Isolationism in America Post WW1
- Thread starter Leistungsfähiger Amerikan
- Start date
ArmchairPhilosopher
Banned
Not sure WW2 is "inevitable" without the world's only superpower being isolationist.
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Well the US wasn't the World's only super power quite yet, but the League of Nations would have a certain boost of credibility if the US was a member. And if the US wasn't isolationist they could have pressured France and Britain to lessen Germany's debts during the 20s.
Honestly I think you'ld be hard pressed to get the US not to go isolationist after ww1. They just got out of a war that most of the people didn't want to get into the first place. America lost thousands of lives for no territorial gain all because Wilson tried to trade physical assets for world peace. You have a generation returning from war who are sick and tired of Europe and everything to do with them.
For the US to not go isolationist you would need to end the war before too many U.S. forces arrive. I suggest that as soon as the US declares war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, then the central powers should sue for peace as quick as possible before the extra men give a physical boost to the morale boost of their eventual arrival gave.
For the US to not go isolationist you would need to end the war before too many U.S. forces arrive. I suggest that as soon as the US declares war on Germany and Austria-Hungary, then the central powers should sue for peace as quick as possible before the extra men give a physical boost to the morale boost of their eventual arrival gave.
Have to agree with you there; getting rid of Harding would do absolutely nothing to stop America's return to isolationism. The whole reason promising a return to normalcy won him the election was because most of the American people were deeply unhappy with everything that came out of US entry into World War I.
The other possibility would be to change how the US got involved in the war, in a way that makes Americans feel better about it. Ideally, it would be helpful if Germany somehow declared war on the US, instead of the other way around, but I don't really see any way to bring that about. Anything that could deflate the isolationist argument that the US only got involved in the war so the Entente could pay back their war loans would probably help quite a bit as well.
It think it would still be enough not to make the USA 'strident' about isolationism, and the USA not entering WW1 would be a perfect POD.
THis is just a half formed idea, so be gentle, but
WI America got involved in the war, but only in the non-european theaters?
THus you could have some involvement, perhaps some actual territory gains, and a far less grim experiance than OTL (avoiding trench warfare).
WI America got involved in the war, but only in the non-european theaters?
THus you could have some involvement, perhaps some actual territory gains, and a far less grim experiance than OTL (avoiding trench warfare).
Keeping the US out of WWI would work; the US still going to be disinclined to get involved in Europe's affairs, but it won't have the same emotional edge to it that it would after US entry into World War I. It would also be a lot easier to get the US out of isolationism once its interests start to be directly threatened by foreign powers, especially when compared to OTL, where a lot of early Nazi and Japanese aggression was met with apathy.
The only downside is that it does come with the added complication of changing the course of World War I quite a bit (how much depends on the details).
And it would be the conventional wisdom that all the troubles of the world stemmed from the fact that the US didn't enter the war, instead of the fact that they did.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I thnk that isolationism uspart of American culture. You can still find isolationist attitudes. I don't blame Harding
It's easy to overemphasize the isolationism of the US in the interwar period. Isolationist is essentially a pejorative term developed to make the views of non-intervention seem more radical than they were. The US remained quite active in international diplomacy during this "isolationist" time. The Washington Naval Treaty, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the Stimson Doctrine, the Dawes and Young Plans, and many other treaties and policies all show that the US was very involved.
What was not strong was any desire to intervene militarily or be bound by international alliances, which is not just a legacy of WWI and the failure to enter the League of Nations, but part of American culture since the Washington Farewell Address and a feeling of security due to being bordered by two vast oceans. The Great Depression also had a great deal to do with American reluctance to get involved in the problems elsewhere in the world.
It's hard to see how any change about Harding would have changed any of that. Harding was not President when the US declined to do anything with the great crises of the 1930s. And the isolationists leading the America First Committee did not quote Harding, but looked to George Washington's warning about entangling alliances and a general desire to not see the US bombed like how China or Britain were being bombed.
The idea that the US not intervening in WWI means they would be more likely to intervene later is just weird. I think it would just have the opposite effect. "Look, we didn't get involved in WWI, and things turned out just fine. So why do so now?"
The end of traditional American security/alliance policy was the realization that 1) new technologies had made the US less secure behind its oceanic curtain, 2) the threats of the 20th Century (Nazism and Communism) were greater in scope than previous threats, and 3) the US was the only candidate for world leadership after WWII (as neither Britain nor France, the previous leaders were in any shape to do so). The failure of appeasement indicated that the democracies of the world couldn't allow themselves to be picked off one by one, as war would only be delayed and not prevented by such measures.
I would also point out that there were strong anti-interventionist measures in other countries as well during that time including the UK and France. They could have intervened without the US, but did not because of the consequences of what they lost in WWI. Their actions were much more guided by WWI than the US which had longstanding origins.
What was not strong was any desire to intervene militarily or be bound by international alliances, which is not just a legacy of WWI and the failure to enter the League of Nations, but part of American culture since the Washington Farewell Address and a feeling of security due to being bordered by two vast oceans. The Great Depression also had a great deal to do with American reluctance to get involved in the problems elsewhere in the world.
It's hard to see how any change about Harding would have changed any of that. Harding was not President when the US declined to do anything with the great crises of the 1930s. And the isolationists leading the America First Committee did not quote Harding, but looked to George Washington's warning about entangling alliances and a general desire to not see the US bombed like how China or Britain were being bombed.
The idea that the US not intervening in WWI means they would be more likely to intervene later is just weird. I think it would just have the opposite effect. "Look, we didn't get involved in WWI, and things turned out just fine. So why do so now?"
The end of traditional American security/alliance policy was the realization that 1) new technologies had made the US less secure behind its oceanic curtain, 2) the threats of the 20th Century (Nazism and Communism) were greater in scope than previous threats, and 3) the US was the only candidate for world leadership after WWII (as neither Britain nor France, the previous leaders were in any shape to do so). The failure of appeasement indicated that the democracies of the world couldn't allow themselves to be picked off one by one, as war would only be delayed and not prevented by such measures.
I would also point out that there were strong anti-interventionist measures in other countries as well during that time including the UK and France. They could have intervened without the US, but did not because of the consequences of what they lost in WWI. Their actions were much more guided by WWI than the US which had longstanding origins.
Very true; it's a big part of why the US is skeptical of the UN and other international organizations.