I see we've had multiple threads on the 1916 election and a Hughes victory. But most of it focused on whether he would have entered WW1 earlier/later, and the potential backlash against the GOP in the 1920s. Some people have said that the peace treaty would have been basically the same.
In the debate over Wilson's treaty of Versailles, a lot of isolationist Republicans including Lodge, were willing to accept a Franco-American alliance, which could have been a prelude to something like NATO. But they were deadset against the open commitments of a League of Nations.
Part of the aftermath of WW1 was shaped uniquely by Wilson's personality and Wilsonian idealism. Raising hopes for a democratic peace. Germans actually thinking they could lose the war and gain more territory by annexing Austria under the principle of self-determination. People talk about how harsh Versailles was, but Germany lost no more land than Alsace-Lorraine, which should be taken for granted. Maybe without Wilson's idealism, Hughes would not have stood in the way of a true Carthaginian peace.
With Theodore Roosevelt realism, you could have had a very different agenda and goals with the peace, the goal being that Germany never be able to threaten the western allies again. And not about making the world safe for democracy. Perhaps if Hughes had entered the war with the stated purpose of stopping German world domination, as opposed to ending all wars, there would have been less disillusionment after the war, both in the USA and Europe.
Obviously this would butterfly European politics so differently that theres no point talking about the pre-WW2 situation as it historically happened. Although its still an interesting speculation for me. Whether an isolationist 1940s USA would have honored a US-French defensive treaty if the war had started over a defense of Poland. Perhaps the USA also joins the UK in defending Belgium neutrality in 1919. Then Hitler would have to decide whether Belgium is worth the war with the USA, being the gambler that he is, he'd probably take it.
In the debate over Wilson's treaty of Versailles, a lot of isolationist Republicans including Lodge, were willing to accept a Franco-American alliance, which could have been a prelude to something like NATO. But they were deadset against the open commitments of a League of Nations.
Part of the aftermath of WW1 was shaped uniquely by Wilson's personality and Wilsonian idealism. Raising hopes for a democratic peace. Germans actually thinking they could lose the war and gain more territory by annexing Austria under the principle of self-determination. People talk about how harsh Versailles was, but Germany lost no more land than Alsace-Lorraine, which should be taken for granted. Maybe without Wilson's idealism, Hughes would not have stood in the way of a true Carthaginian peace.
With Theodore Roosevelt realism, you could have had a very different agenda and goals with the peace, the goal being that Germany never be able to threaten the western allies again. And not about making the world safe for democracy. Perhaps if Hughes had entered the war with the stated purpose of stopping German world domination, as opposed to ending all wars, there would have been less disillusionment after the war, both in the USA and Europe.
Obviously this would butterfly European politics so differently that theres no point talking about the pre-WW2 situation as it historically happened. Although its still an interesting speculation for me. Whether an isolationist 1940s USA would have honored a US-French defensive treaty if the war had started over a defense of Poland. Perhaps the USA also joins the UK in defending Belgium neutrality in 1919. Then Hitler would have to decide whether Belgium is worth the war with the USA, being the gambler that he is, he'd probably take it.