American Isolationism: Sustainable?

How Isolationist Would the *U.S Be in 2010?

  • Just as open as OTL

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • Mostly open, but more layed back and introverted

    Votes: 9 23.7%
  • Not totally closed, but more 1927 then 2010

    Votes: 16 42.1%
  • Mr. Herbert "Rugged Individualism" Hoover levels

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Blame Thande

    Votes: 4 10.5%

  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
The idea of a world with "reduced" world wars is one of the most talked about on this board. There are many cliches (eternal colonial empires, lots'o'monarchy, etc) and much debate to go with this topic, however, from what I've seen, one issue is missing. American Isolatioism.

In the cliche version, America spends eternity as a colonial power dominated by old-fashioned conservatives. While this extreme view is probably wrong, the question remains: as of 2010 in a world where, for simplicity, WW1 was considerably shorter, *Versailles was less punitive, and WW2 was butterflied entirely (lets say Russia is a semi-fascist military dictatorship with a figurehead Tsar) what happens to the U.S?
 

Blair152

Banned
That depends on whether the U.S. would allow ALL of Europe fall to the Soviets after World War II. Would the U.S. be so dumb as to take its marbles and go home after it pulled Europe's chestnuts from the fire for the second time in the 20th century? Would be be so dumb as to allow Japan to be divided into North Japan and South Japan, or worse, allow Japan to become the People's Democratic Republic of Japan?
 
I'm sorry, Blair, but you seem to have misunderstood. The premise of the thread was that there was no WW2 or Soviet Union, i.e none of the OTl catalysts for Isolationism to end.
 
That depends on whether the U.S. would allow ALL of Europe fall to the Soviets after World War II. Would the U.S. be so dumb as to take its marbles and go home after it pulled Europe's chestnuts from the fire for the second time in the 20th century? Would be be so dumb as to allow Japan to be divided into North Japan and South Japan, or worse, allow Japan to become the People's Democratic Republic of Japan?

I think at that point, it would be too late, if anything because of WWII.

Not participating in WWI (assuming a WWI takes place) would be a more viable situation.
 
While this extreme view is probably wrong, the question remains: as of 2010 in a world where, for simplicity, WW1 was considerably shorter, *Versailles was less punitive, and WW2 was butterflied entirely (lets say Russia is a semi-fascist military dictatorship with a figurehead Tsar) what happens to the U.S?

Personally, I think the United States would remain broadly isolationist, at least politically. I would say isolationism was the most popular approach to US foreign policy right up until 1940 or so (witness the failure to ratify Versailles, and the 1930's Neutrality Acts) and only lost that position due to the need (which almost everyone could see) to confront the Nazis and Soviets. Since this doesn't happen ITTL, America will probably try to remain aloof from the dealings of the other world powers for most of the 20th century, occasionally serving as a neutral mediator in their conflicts and pushing for disarmerment measures like the OTL Washington Naval Conference. TTL's American military will be much smaller and maintain few or no bases on foreign soil. Participation in NATO-like alliances would be right out (the suggestion of such would be condemned by TTL politicians and media as an unacceptable surrender of American sovereignty). Free trade would still be a big deal, and America's economic and cultural (as opposed to military or political) influence on the world would be very large*. Domestic policies could go in many directions, though I suspect that the *Great Depression will get Roosevelt elected President to enact the New Deal. With no communism, no Vietnam War and (most likely) no military draft at all, the *Sixties will be much milder, and the "Liberal Consensus" of the 1930's-1950's will last much longer, possibly to 2010 (the Civil Rights movement, Sexual Revolution, etc. will happen on schedule, but their ideas will, after an initial period of hesitancy, be accepted into the mainstream). Overall, probably a much duller 20th century-but I would call that a good thing.

*"Isolationists" were never opposed to foreign trade as long as it didn't get the US involved in any wars.
 
Last edited:

The Vulture

Banned
Eventually, the US will get dragged out into the world. The results depend on the situation.

I suppose the US might content itself just within the Americas- dealing with Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.
 
Eventually, the US will get dragged out into the world. The results depend on the situation.

I suppose the US might content itself just within the Americas- dealing with Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.

Thats basically what I meant. In the 1880's-1890's the US basically developed a foreign policy of maintaining a sphere of influence in Latin America and trying to keep good relations (and trading rights) with all the major European powers without getting involved in their power struggles. This continued without interruption until 1917, then resumed in 1919-1920 before definatively ending with the Lend-Lease program. I think that in the world the OP described (no communism, no WWII), the US would probably continue the above foreign policy throughout the 20th century.
 
I'm sorry, Blair, but you seem to have misunderstood. The premise of the thread was that there was no WW2 or Soviet Union, i.e none of the OTl catalysts for Isolationism to end.

Sorry, I got called away-but yes, I think Blair misunderstood. My idea was to ask if America would leave isolation even if the OTL catalysts weren't there. For the record, my own opinion is broadly the same as Mizra's.
 
I think you would also have to get rid of the US push across the pacific. Something like Spain sells the Philippines and Guam to Germany before the Spanish-American war so that nothing pulls the US west of Hawaii, maybe even Hawaii to Britan so that "Manifest Destiny" stops at the Pacific coast That way you would avoid the conflict with Japan. Get rid of the whole "inevitable Pacific war" meme of the 1920,s and 1930,s.
 
My feeling is that Latin America would be seeing a lot of intervention as per OTL, but the *US will probably largely focus on trading with non-Western Hemisphere nations. As it would rapidly be moving away from the period of limited western interventions, this would probably be largely achieved through diplomacy. As such, the US probably wouldn't have had the draft at any point (given your stated scenario and assuming therefore no US WWI intervention), and would likely have a decent Air Force and Navy and relatively poor Army. It might become a de facto neutral state with some international institutions based there, but probably not the *UN or anything else particularly major; those would likely be in Switzerland.
 
I don't believe that isolationism was ever government doctrine. Isolationism was a popular movement, like the peace movement, aimed specifically at certain conflicts at certain times, but never doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary,the Spanish-American War, and the Guano Islands Act are evidence of a country with a world view not limited by shorelines.
 
I don't believe that isolationism was ever government doctrine. Isolationism was a popular movement, like the peace movement, aimed specifically at certain conflicts at certain times, but never doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary,the Spanish-American War, and the Guano Islands Act are evidence of a country with a world view not limited by shorelines.

Yeah, but if you look at it all of those related to the Western Hemisphere mainly or entirely. Americans would accept wars in the West, even permanent commitments in the west, but they wouldn't accept the same in the East. That's not to say that the US didn't intervene, but it was only because the sorts of things the US tended to be doing were low-intensity.
 
The US would have to develop at least a moderately powerful military. There's nothing like being big and wealthy and weak to make others pick on you...
 
The US would have to develop at least a moderately powerful military. There's nothing like being big and wealthy and weak to make others pick on you...

Yes, but that can be achieved the traditional way: through a strong Navy and Air Force. The only bordering land countries are Mexico and Canada, and both would be insane to invade the US, even without a particularly strong Army.
 
The thing is, isolation is only partly sustainable if there are actually no 'bad guys' in this time line. I doubt the USA would be culturally backwards; foreign trade would see to that. And as the USA became more and more powerful, the Colonial policies of the European nations would clash with the free trade policy of the USA. I doubt this would make the USA and Europe enemies, but it would more bring the USA onto the world stage.
 
Wow! That's quite a bit of discussion!:)

To TIMER: Since this exercise is to do with an America without the OTL catalysts to come out of hiding, lets say the Japanese are an old-style empire who, unwilling to face the undistracted West but needing oil, managed to come to some sort of agreement with China, i.e Manchukuo survives and some other enclaves go to Japan in return for peace.

To Just Leo: Indeed, but don't forget that the Spanish-American War was originally about Cuba. While America took her Pacific empire then, most of the intervention in later years were, as Truth said, in the West. So I think that while you may have a point, isolatioism was a doctrine that librally affected the U.S viewpoint.
 
Possibly a POD where Japan realizes what a rich prize Manchuria is and spends most of her energies developing and colonizing the region. Still a fair amount of friction with the US but not enough for a war that expands the US involvment in the region.
 
Top