If the US stayed out of WWI, would they remain isolated?

I was wondering this while reading various threads on the situation in Russia and its periphery. The USA today is obviously viewed as something of a military juggernaut, and justifiably so considering the military budget, presence of nuclear weapons, and a seemingly infinite number of foreign military bases (as well as their position in NATO). Some tankies and less extreme folks seem to see the "West" as growing meeker and more appeasing in the face of Russia's foreign aggression, and this view spurred this question:

If the US had stayed out of WWI, whether because they didn't have a good enough reason to join or because the war ended before they were given one, would they remain isolationist, or is it a historical inevitability that America meddles in foreign affairs? By foreign affairs, I mean outside the western hemisphere, since even during its isolationist period it still had a few incursions into Latin America to influence the nations there.

What I'm aiming for is a USA that, today, is correctly viewed as a meek, non-involved power, or the latter alone at the very least.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I was wondering this while reading various threads on the situation in Russia and its periphery. The USA today is obviously viewed as something of a military juggernaut, and justifiably so considering the military budget, presence of nuclear weapons, and a seemingly infinite number of foreign military bases (as well as their position in NATO). Some tankies and less extreme folks seem to see the "West" as growing meeker and more appeasing in the face of Russia's foreign aggression, and this view spurred this question:

If the US had stayed out of WWI, whether because they didn't have a good enough reason to join or because the war ended before they were given one, would they remain isolationist, or is it a historical inevitability that America meddles in foreign affairs? By foreign affairs, I mean outside the western hemisphere, since even during its isolationist period it still had a few incursions into Latin America to influence the nations there.

What I'm aiming for is a USA that, today, is correctly viewed as a meek, non-involved power, or the latter alone at the very least.

I got the impression the USA returned to isolationism after WW1. I suspect sooner or later mission creep on the Monroe doctrine is inevitable - probably to parts of Asia.
 
America cannot be isolationist because needed/needs to pillage world resources to fuel its industrial machine and colonies/markets to flood with its goods.
 

jahenders

Banned
If it stayed out it would be because of a stronger isolationist bent. So, it would be isolationist (at least for a while).

Economics would inevitably draw it more into international things, but the political/economic interdependence might have been lessened. This might change the relative impacts of the great depression (in the US and Europe).

Additionally, a lesser-involved or later-involved US would likely mean the US is relatively weaker (militarily and economically) in the late 30s. So, it may be far less able to coordinate an effective oil embargo on Japan and its diplomatic rattlings might be toned down. All of this might mean that Japan doesn't attack the US in 1941 and that US involvement doesn't happen until some time in 1942 (possibly due to German action).

I was wondering this while reading various threads on the situation in Russia and its periphery. The USA today is obviously viewed as something of a military juggernaut, and justifiably so considering the military budget, presence of nuclear weapons, and a seemingly infinite number of foreign military bases (as well as their position in NATO). Some tankies and less extreme folks seem to see the "West" as growing meeker and more appeasing in the face of Russia's foreign aggression, and this view spurred this question:

If the US had stayed out of WWI, whether because they didn't have a good enough reason to join or because the war ended before they were given one, would they remain isolationist, or is it a historical inevitability that America meddles in foreign affairs? By foreign affairs, I mean outside the western hemisphere, since even during its isolationist period it still had a few incursions into Latin America to influence the nations there.

What I'm aiming for is a USA that, today, is correctly viewed as a meek, non-involved power, or the latter alone at the very least.
 
America cannot be isolationist because needed/needs to pillage world resources to fuel its industrial machine and colonies/markets to flood with its goods.

Can you explain why america didn't get involved in any wars from 1865-1898 then?
 

Deleted member 1487

They'd stay isolationist and hide behind the oceans and their navy. They don't have a military industrial complex or need to go on foreign adventures really, so can sit at home and enjoy the money they made during WW1 and keep NYC into the world financial capital and appreciate the fact that as a result of the war they went from net debtee to net debtor.
 

Deleted member 1487

Can you explain why america didn't get involved in any wars from 1865-1898 then?
You mean besides the Indian war and Manifest Destiny? They were internally expanding and when the frontier closed officially in 1890 they started looking outwards for expansion.
 
You mean besides the Indian war and Manifest Destiny? They were internally expanding and when the frontier closed officially in 1890 they started looking outwards for expansion.

World resources he said, and manifest destiny already happened by 1865
 

Deleted member 1487

World resources he said, and manifest destiny already happened by 1865
Technically they were world resources, not yet part of the US economy until formally overtaken and exploited. Manifest Destiny was a continuous process until the frontier was officially closed in 1890; historians consider it over once the continental borders were defined, but until that era was colonized and exploited even if officially under US rule it was still ongoing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

Also I believe he was referring to how the US business behaved toward Latin America:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...nth-century_revolutions:_the_postcolonial_era
By mid-century the region also confronted a growing United States, seeking to expand on the North American continent and extend its influence in the hemisphere. In Mexican–American War (1846–48), Mexico lost over half of its territory to the United States. In the 1860s France attempted to indirectly control Mexico. In South America, Brazil consolidated its control of large swaths of the Amazon Basin at the expense of its neighbors. In the 1880s the United States implemented an aggressive policy to defend and expand its political and economic interests in all of Latin America, which culminated in the creation of the Pan-American Conference, the successful completion of the Panama Canal and the United States intervention in the final Cuban war of independence.
 
note that the OP specifically exempts the US monkey business in Latin America from 'isolationism'. Which brings up the good question 'does pursuit of financial goals in other nations count as isolationism?". The US certainly would have tried to stay aloof of purely political foreign adventures. But if this TL sees the rise of the Axis powers, how long can they stay isolated?
 
Is it likely that an isolated USA would not have had the universalising missions often associanted with "America?"
 
Technically they were world resources, not yet part of the US economy until formally overtaken and exploited. Manifest Destiny was a continuous process until the frontier was officially closed in 1890; historians consider it over once the continental borders were defined, but until that era was colonized and exploited even if officially under US rule it was still ongoing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars

Also I believe he was referring to how the US business behaved toward Latin America:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...nth-century_revolutions:_the_postcolonial_era

Yes. Which is why I didn't interwar and pre Wwi but mainly before America did much outside its borders, purchasing Alaska and taking over Hawaii were some of the few before the SAW and then they started to do that.
 
Isolated from Europe? Maybe.

But America would inevitably get involved in Asia and was already heavily involved in Latin America by this time.
 
As others have said, America was bound to get involved in Asia. Commodore Perry's mission was in, what, the 1850s? (Possibly the earliest instance of blowback)

Economic needs would drive foreign policy goals, as per the conquest of the west for the needs and desires of slave power.
 
America cannot be isolationist because needed/needs to pillage world resources to fuel its industrial machine and colonies/markets to flood with its goods.

America supplied most of its natural resources needs internally and bought what it needed on the world market. Whatever problems the US had with its colonies, it can hardly be said to have pillaged them.

It also had a large enough domestic market that export markets weren't that important compared to other countries, and it didn't need dependent countries to "dump" goods on. America did look at keeping international markets open to its products, but it is hard to argue that the USA was "flooding" the world market with goods (with the exception of the immediate postwar period when the US was the only country capable of making many of the industrial goods other countries needed to rebuild their economies).

Particularly in the 1920-1960 period, this is complete nonsense. After 1960, US dependence on foreign sources for certain natural resources increased, but this was not accompanied by any "pillaging". Instead, the newly emerging Third World was benefiting from a commodities boom, and the most important natural resource - oil - was being nationalized and cartelized by foreign countries.
 
Okay, I'll narrow it down. Without WWII, and the Cold War, would America still be the power with the longest arms? What we're looking for is an America that doesn't invade the Middle East every decade, doesn't have military bases in almost every country we can think of, isn't seen as the 'World Police'.
 
Top