DBWI: The US had quit the League of Nations

As we all know, the United States very nearly didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles. For those of you who need a history lesson, Willson quite annoyed Congress, and there was a lot of talk of Congress not ratifying the Treaty, and forming a separate peace with the Central Powers. If this had happened, it quite likely that they wouldn't have joined the League of Nations. What would the implications of this be?

EDIT: To be better (in response to Blue Max's very correct points)
As we all know, the United States very nearly didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles. For those of you who need a history lesson, a combination of President Wilson's clearly sectarian politics, the heavy losses the US took during the war (yes, light compared to Europe's, but...), and the dedicated campaigning of a number of prominent senators nearly prevented this event. This same bloc also spoke against joining the League of Nations, and had they won the first battle, they almost certainly would have taken the second as well. Had this occurred, what sort of effects might have come about?
 
Last edited:
As we all know, the United States very nearly didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles. For those of you who need a history lesson, Willson quite annoyed Congress, and there was a lot of talk of Congress not ratifying the Treaty, and forming a separate peace with the Central Powers. If this had happened, it quite likely that they wouldn't have joined the League of Nations. What would the implications of this be?

OOC:

Actually, you are somewhat mistaken.

Wilson deliberately excluded the Republican Party and forced through his own agendas, like segregating the Armed Forces and promoting the KKK. While the LoN was quashed by Henry Cabot Lodge, Wilson deliberately ignored Congress to a very large degree. I'd have to imagine this scenario involves Wilson being much less of a prick.

IC: I recall that the United States' involvement with the League of Nations was lukewarm and we kind of went our own way--Wilson had essentially forced it through congress and America largely paid lip service to the whole LoN until events in the 1930s simply discredited it entirely. I think the difference would be something like the United States would need to get attacked outright to join WW2, instead of FDR persuading a reluctant electorate that Germany's sinking of the Kearny was sufficient grounds for a fight. That could be a real nightmare scenario--no US involvement in WW2?

I think the better question might be the opposite--what if the US had remained committed to global politics instead of paying lip service to them and instead sacking out?
 
As we all know, the United States very nearly didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles. For those of you who need a history lesson, Willson quite annoyed Congress, and there was a lot of talk of Congress not ratifying the Treaty, and forming a separate peace with the Central Powers. If this had happened, it quite likely that they wouldn't have joined the League of Nations. What would the implications of this be?

EDIT: To be better (in response to Blue Max's very correct points)
As we all know, the United States very nearly didn't sign the Treaty of Versailles. For those of you who need a history lesson, a combination of President Wilson's clearly sectarian politics, the heavy losses the US took during the war (yes, light compared to Europe's, but...), and the dedicated campaigning of a number of prominent senators nearly prevented this event. This same bloc also spoke against joining the League of Nations, and had they won the first battle, they almost certainly would have taken the second as well. Had this occurred, what sort of effects might have come about?

OOC:

Actually, you are somewhat mistaken.

Wilson deliberately excluded the Republican Party and forced through his own agendas, like segregating the Armed Forces and promoting the KKK. While the LoN was quashed by Henry Cabot Lodge, Wilson deliberately ignored Congress to a very large degree. I'd have to imagine this scenario involves Wilson being much less of a prick.

IC: I recall that the United States' involvement with the League of Nations was lukewarm and we kind of went our own way--Wilson had essentially forced it through congress and America largely paid lip service to the whole LoN until events in the 1930s simply discredited it entirely. I think the difference would be something like the United States would need to get attacked outright to join WW2, instead of FDR persuading a reluctant electorate that Germany's sinking of the Kearny was sufficient grounds for a fight. That could be a real nightmare scenario--no US involvement in WW2?

I think the better question might be the opposite--what if the US had remained committed to global politics instead of paying lip service to them and instead sacking out?

Given the way that the Great War* ended, the World War* was inevitable, it was only a matter of time before Germany sought a rematch. So whether or not the Yanks were in the League doesn't really matter, war was coming sometime in the mid to late 1930s. If anything, no American involvement in the League would have emboldened the various militaristic powers, allowing for faster rearmament on the part of Germany, and possibly for Italy and Japan to pursue their colonial adventures more vigorously, perhaps to the point where they foolishly antagonized the Western Allies.

Japan, emboldened and opportunistic, and faced with a seemingly weak, quiescent America, may well have done something even dumber than their invasion of China in 1941, such as attacking British and French colonial holdings in the Far East or actually coming to blow with the United States... Japanese neutrality, enforced by their awe and fear of American power, was also key to the Allied victory in Europe. Had they come to blows with the Alliance for Democracy, the war would have lasted long enough for both nations to burn in nuclear fire, even if the bombs in question were British, not American.

What all of that boils down to is that a delayed US involvement in the World War only prolongs the War to 1946 at the latest, given that that is when the yanks built the first nuclear bombs. No US involvement only prolongs things until 1948, when Britain got their own nuclear weapons, unless the US, while officially neutral, is willing to sell a few of the damned things just to get an 'operational test' so that they'd know just what one would really do.

Remember, it wasn't until 1953 that nuclear weapons were used in anger, and the bombing of Grozny put a stop to the Persian War before it could become a Second World War*. (WWIII* to you Yanks) But at a terrible price, one that caused the first Moseley Government fall over the controversy. To this day, the United Kingdom remains the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger. What if it had been the Americans who'd done something of the sort, perhaps to put an abrupt end to the (alternate) World War?

(OOC: *The Commonwealth and the United States refer to the wars by slightly different names.)
 

ninebucks

Banned
In a strange way, perhaps the world would have been a better place if the USA hadn't joined the League of Nations. At least in terms of international co-operation.

Dissent towards the League of Nations started off strong, and remained strong in America throughout its entire existence. When the World War came, and the League of Nations collapsed, many were glad to see the back of it.

Of course, it was then this antipathy that stopped the Americans from taking part in the talks to establish a new international organisation for the new post-War period, the Soviet Union took control of the process, eventually forming the Global International (Globintern).

Now, I know this may seem like a strange thing for a British citizen to say, but the establishment of the Globintern was a very promising development! It was not, as its critics claimed, an instrument designed to spread global communism, (the USSR had the Comintern for that), the Globintern was strongly modeled on the LoN, with a few very important reforms, (that, in retrospect, probably went to far). Notably, the Globintern's policy of accepting delegations from colonised nations was extremely admirable, but what was ultimately what put it on a collission course with the Imperialist nations, leading to Moseley's (SPIT!) decision to withdraw all co-operation in 1948, and, well, we all know what happened from there...

The Globintern collapsed along with its primary sponsor, the USSR, and nothing has really come to take its place. I mean sure, we have regional co-operation entities, (the European Community, the Organisation of the Americas, the Persian Community, the Nanjing Pact, etc.), but none of these had the overall global scope of the Globintern, or even of the League of Nations for that matter.

And sure, in recent decades its been fashionable to criticise that internationalism as idealistic and unrealistic, its interesting to speculate just what might have happened if the USA hadn't been turned off by the prospect of international co-operation between 1918-38, and had instead took part in the Globintern...
 
well, we wouldn't be under the control of the Global elites who are going to murder 80% of the population. Woodrow wilson sold every bit of all of mankind's freedoms for "peace".

It is all a lie. This is tyanny. It will come for us all-

Hello this is the New World Order. Please prepare for LON concentration camps to be activated. Will all sheeple head for your nearest train station.
 
Top