American politics after it loses a war of attrition in WWI?

America losing WWI in a long war is a stretch. But if we say just the right multitude of PoDs all happen, TR getting elected in 1912 and leading America to join the Entente in 1914 or 1915, Austria-Hungary modernizing their army in 1909 instead of 1912, Italy joining the CP around 1916 or 1917 after building themselves up a bit, Romania staying neutral, Russia dropping out a few months sooner, it can probably be done.

So in this scenario, America goes fairly all out, but is unable to prevent France from falling to a combined German/more competent Austria-Hungary/Italian assault in 1918, America loses a couple million men (killed/wounded/captured combined), undergoes more serious shortages on the home front, has a tougher Spanish Flu, a degree a censorship (don’t know if Roosevelt would go for it to the degre Wilson did), and still loses.

How would this effect politics in the US? Would it be likely to become more isolationist? Revanchist? Would socialism become more widespread?
 
It would be isolationist for sure. And the war will hurt American relations with everyone after the war. Germany most of all, obviously, but even with France and Britain. A lot of people had suspected that Britain and France wanted to rope them into their conflict. Some already believed the Zimmerman telegram was a British forgery because A) it fit nicely with the whole perfidious Albion legend and b) understandable skepticism that the Germans would really do something as stupid and reckless as this (they obviously had never met Wilhelm). Now, since there's no victory euphoria, the view becomes popular again and you end up with a total reaffirmation of the view that European entanglements are awful and likely a sense all European powers share guilt for the conflict. Americans will want isolationist positions for a generation.
 
Last edited:
Top