Effects of an Isolationist America After World War II

The thread I made a couple weeks earlier about a President Robert Taft got me thinking about it. Suspending disbelief for a moment, let's say that after or pretty soon after a World War II that goes mostly as per our timeline and ending in 1945, let's say the United States, for whatever reasons, recalls her troops for world obligations right. So aside from some trade, some semi-frequent intervention in Central America and the Caribbean to protect US business interests, and a handful of naval bases in the Philippines, America is spending it's time in "Splendid Isolationism" for at least the next several decades.

In the short term, this means no Marshall Plan, no NATO, no Truman Doctrine, nothing of the sort, but how does the world go on without American interventionism or internationalism? Specifically,

-How do Europe and Asia put up against the Soviet Union?

-Do some sort of second Entente try to continue the Cold War without America?

-Speaking of which, how does the USSR react to not being as strongly challenged on the world stage as our timeline?

-How does decolonization go? Do Britain, France, and Portugal try more strongly to hold on their African empires? How about Indochina?

-What about the Middle East? Does Israel get off the ground? What about pan-Arabism?

-How does Europe get along without Marshall's aid (probably better than expected, but not as good as our timeline.

...

Remember, this isn't really a discussion on how this effects America, but how it does the rest of the world. So, what do you all think?
 
The thread I made a couple weeks earlier about a President Robert Taft got me thinking about it. Suspending disbelief for a moment, let's say that after or pretty soon after a World War II that goes mostly as per our timeline and ending in 1945, let's say the United States, for whatever reasons, recalls her troops for world obligations right. So aside from some trade, some semi-frequent intervention in Central America and the Caribbean to protect US business interests, and a handful of naval bases in the Philippines, America is spending it's time in "Splendid Isolationism" for at least the next several decades.

In the short term, this means no Marshall Plan, no NATO, no Truman Doctrine, nothing of the sort, but how does the world go on without American interventionism or internationalism? Specifically,

-How do Europe and Asia put up against the Soviet Union?

-Do some sort of second Entente try to continue the Cold War without America?

-Speaking of which, how does the USSR react to not being as strongly challenged on the world stage as our timeline?

-How does decolonization go? Do Britain, France, and Portugal try more strongly to hold on their African empires? How about Indochina?

-What about the Middle East? Does Israel get off the ground? What about pan-Arabism?

-How does Europe get along without Marshall's aid (probably better than expected, but not as good as our timeline.

...

Remember, this isn't really a discussion on how this effects America, but how it does the rest of the world. So, what do you all think?

I. Asia doesn't do that much. Japan's defenseless, Korea fights hard, but doesn't do well. Taiwan holds off the PRC...unless the Soviets send in the navy. Ho swiftly reunites Vietnam, though he might become the Asian Tito if Truman doesn't back the French. As for Europe, Churchill and de Gaulle try and rearm.
II. Churchill surely would. Eden, I'm not sure.
III. The USSR is likely not moving westward. They will try and rebuild after the war, but they won't be in much of a position to do things. After all, they didn't do much to aid the Greek communists. There's no need for a Warsaw Pact if there is no NATO.
IV. Very likely. Of course, without USA help, it'll go a lot worse...
V. Israel will likely get lots of ex-US arms. Pan-Arabism will likely do better too.
VI. Sounds good.
 
i think we'd see a federal eu pretty quickly to counter the soviets.

Or, the UK doesn't devolve and remains a super power. Thus the cold war is between Britain and the USSR.
 

Sir

Banned
Much more stable USSR. Communists may be elected to power in countries like France and Italy without the Marshall plan. As Europe recovers, it might be attributed it the successes of Communism. Korea is united under a communist government. Taiwan is brought under the control of the PRC. Without the tensions of the Cold War, the world is a nicer place.
 
I consider the reverse to be true. The British, it could be argued, were trying to hold back overt communist influence since around 1943. Even without Churchill in power in the British government, Atlee wasn't especially pro communist, and Bevan was committed to trying to keep the British Empire in a position of relative strength. Which involved opposing communism, although with an ambiguously isolationist USA (how isolationist is it? Keep itself to itself completely? Provide loans?) such resistance as could be offered and imperial delusions/force sustained would most likely collapse fairly quickly. The British Empire after WWII could possibly have kept going for longer than it could have done-but the US, although it sometimes opposed it, also provided the financial assitance and justification (as part of a NATO Alliance against the communist threat) required for a strong presence 'East of Eden'. Without significant US assistance, the Empire could have fallen even more quickly. I could, however, see far closer ties between Britain and France, as well as the rest of Europe, in a bid to hold off communism there. This may, if anything mean that the Commonwealth declines more quickly (commitment more to Europe means less to the old Empire.)

I also fail to see how the rise of communist governments in France and Italy is going to lead to any sort of result apart from that of communist governments in Eastern Europe: poverty and authoritarian states. If nothing else, I doubt that the combination of command economies and far less aid than the Marshall Plan is going to hasten the recovery of Europe. (Although, naturally, the USSR will proclaim that it did via Pravda.) And "without the tensions of the Cold War"- surely, the Cold Warriors, with their doctrine of Containment, were ultimately justified? They contained the USSR, and the USSR ultimately collapsed. One side was for religious tolerance, liberty, democracy, free markets etc. The other one was not, produced dictatorships virtually wherever it went, and spent unneccessarily large sums on military spending against a generally non aggressive West (at least in Europe, where most of the strength was concentrated)-and its own people. How is the world a "nicer place" if the USSR wins out?
 
I also fail to see how the rise of communist governments in France and Italy is going to lead to any sort of result apart from that of communist governments in Eastern Europe: poverty and authoritarian states. If nothing else, I doubt that the combination of command economies and far less aid than the Marshall Plan is going to hasten the recovery of Europe. (Although, naturally, the USSR will proclaim that it did via Pravda.) And "without the tensions of the Cold War"- surely, the Cold Warriors, with their doctrine of Containment, were ultimately justified? They contained the USSR, and the USSR ultimately collapsed. One side was for religious tolerance, liberty, democracy, free markets etc. The other one was not, produced dictatorships virtually wherever it went, and spent unneccessarily large sums on military spending against a generally non aggressive West (at least in Europe, where most of the strength was concentrated)-and its own people. How is the world a "nicer place" if the USSR wins out?

Wait, so are you saying the remaining interventionists in American politics would be justified by America not intervening, and the USSR collapsing anyway?
 
"Containment" does not mean "non intervention". Containment was the OTL US policy of keeping Communism from expanding significantly, until the USSR stopped trying to expand. One of its most important manifestation in the late 40s/early 50s was the Marshall Plan, giving masses of aid to Europe, as well as forming NATO and standing up to the communists in other crises, e.g. Iran, Turkey, and so on. I was saying that the US policy worked in our timeline (in the long term, anyway), and that this was a better outcome than the US non intervention. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear.
 
1) The UK and France go great guns to develop nuclear weapons sufficient to contain the USSR. With Asia it's an open question, whether Stalin decides "Sure, why not? It's not like he'd actually challenge me anyway" and puts Mao in charge of China or the NVKD dumps Mao in an anonymous grave and Stalin puts a weaker, pliable Jiang as his preferred puppet-ruler of China.

2) To an extent, yes, and European society will be more militarized by far than IOTL. France and the UK are the bare minimum of such an alliance, Spain and Portugal would also fit in.

3) Triumphalist dickery and writing out the WAllies and Lend-Lease, as well as its entire role in WWII prior to June, 1941, while painting its victories over the Nazis as without parallel in human history and the USSR as the world's liberator from fascism.

4) It will still go and be the major proxy-contest, the USSR v. whatever powers oppose them. The USSR will portray itself as a progressive, modern liberating force, the UK and France will go to extreme, appalling lengths, and this all fails.

5) Good question. I'm not sure what happens with the Zionist Revolt and if it should happen that the British do unto Ben Gurion what they did unto the Palestinians......then things really get dicey. And if it's strategic defense against the USSR or an Israeli state the USSR will be very happy to create, British needs will trump the Zionists' every single time.

6) A slower recovery and far more militarized than IOTL with a bit of a siege mentality.

6)
 
Top