AH Challenge-

IOTL, like many things, the issue of whether to be isolationist or interventionist was never put to an election. ("Democratic" countries, despite the theory, aren't in practice)

A referendum is close to ASB, but with a POD after 1900, how can a Presidential (or other, if you can make it happen) election be one where, possibly amognst other things, the American public chooses whether or not they want to be isolationists?
 
Sorry- I didn't know about them. What happened.

EDIT:
... and more importantly why do they count for such?
 
Last edited:
Sorry- I didn't know about them. What happened?

1916 - Woodrow Wilson, running on a "He kept us out of war" platform, was re-elected, smashing Charles Evan Hughes and the Republicans (even if they ran a similar platform).

1918 - Republican majority was elected to both houses of Congress, effectively ensuring a block of Wilson's Versailles settlement.

1920 - W. Gamiel Harding was elected president, defeating the pro-League Democratic candidate James Cox.

I would think those elections would count as de facto referendums on isolationism versus interventionism in that era.
 
While all three are disputable (as two were about whether or not to support the League of Nations, not whether to be an interventionist power), I get your point.
 
Carinthium

Possibly the Congressional elections in 1942 being dominated by whether the US should join the war. Presuming either Japan attacks only British and Dutch interests or they still attack the US as well but Hitler doesn't declare war on the US. Especially the former the allied position would become desperate pretty damned quickly and I could see an open call for full US involvement. [Although Nov 42 is probably too late thinking about it. If the US hadn't joined by then I would expect Britain to probably being forced to make peace. Unless some circumstances means the crisis develops say about 6 months later].

Steve
 
Top