The US Doesn't Join NATO

Before NATO, there was a defense treaty between Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. They wanted military aid from the U.S. to counter the U.S.S.R. and thus a new organization was born.

What if Harry Truman thought it would would be a bad idea to be tied to Europe since it would most likely be Europe that is in need of aid and not the U.S. so the alliance isn't made? Is the Warsaw Pact still made? Is the Cold War a lot more peaceful?

(It could still be called NATO if Canada signs the defense treaty.)
 
So basiclly you're saying the US retreats back into diplomatic isolation after World War II?

Dang, all kinds of consequences to that. First being a more belligerant Soviet Union. Stalin will keep grabbing until someone makes it clear he'll get a bloody nose if he doesn't stop.

Possibly no US intervention in Korea either. For that matter if the US is going that route, how long would they bother staying in Japan/West Germany?
 
As long as Stalin was around the US needed to part of NATO. The USSR needed the rock hard Red Army to keep its territories under control, but that also meant it dramatically outsized the rest of Europe, unless you have butterflies all over the place and allow Nazi Germany to survive, which I think is virtually ASB.

The only other option is to unite every other European military into a single organization, and for them to draw on the colonies for the manpower and economic strength to keep it up. Post WWII, this is impossible - India was pulling out of the British Empire (with most of the advanced dominions already long gone) and the French empire was crumbling.

In short - kill Stalin and have the USSR become isolationist. Otherwise, US involvement is a must.
 
As long as Stalin was around the US needed to part of NATO. The USSR needed the rock hard Red Army to keep its territories under control, but that also meant it dramatically outsized the rest of Europe, unless you have butterflies all over the place and allow Nazi Germany to survive, which I think is virtually ASB.

The only other option is to unite every other European military into a single organization, and for them to draw on the colonies for the manpower and economic strength to keep it up. Post WWII, this is impossible - India was pulling out of the British Empire (with most of the advanced dominions already long gone) and the French empire was crumbling.

In short - kill Stalin and have the USSR become isolationist. Otherwise, US involvement is a must.

Wouldn't the U.S.S.R. be so tired after World War II that it would allow the European nations + Canada to regroup?
 
Wouldn't the U.S.S.R. be so tired after World War II that it would allow the European nations + Canada to regroup?

No. This would be the perfect time for the USSR. The USSR was a military juggernaut at this point and the European powers were exhausted militarily, economically and some had no government. It would have been very easy for the USSR to march in with little resistance.
 
No. This would be the perfect time for the USSR. The USSR was a military juggernaut at this point and the European powers were exhausted militarily, economically and some had no government. It would have been very easy for the USSR to march in with little resistance.

I wouldn't be that sure. Yes, militarily, the Red Army was massively powerful, but Stalin would have had to deal with serious supply problems, a hostile population at his back, and the disappointed expectation of peace by just about everyone back home. That against the fact that there would be no way to invade Western Europe without clashing with US troops (which he really couldn't afford) and that Britain was still an island - it would be an extremely unwise choice. The USA might be prevailed on to be neutral in the Finlandisation of Europe, but I doubt anyone in Congress would be willing to let Soviets shoot US troops. Maybe sometime in the late 40s or very early 50s, but even then, maybe.
 
you know, you could tie the POD to this clear back to WW2 and D-Day.... from what I remember reading in "The Longest Day", the US command initially griped about the planned sectors for each invading unit; they realized that taking the westernmost sectors would mean that the US would be attacking into the central part of Europe, and be tied down there long after the war. They originally wanted to have the eastern sectors, so that the US troops would be operating along the coast/northern Europe instead, and could be pulled out much easier after the war. But in the end, the planning was too far along to change it, so it went on as in OTL.

So, let us suppose that the planning for D-Day went as the US command wanted... the US 1st Army lands on Juno and Sword beaches, and the Brits land on Utah, Omaha (ouch), and Gold... granted, there's a hell of a lot of PODs in this alone, but it could eventually lead to a US withdrawal of forces not long after the war....
 
Before NATO, there was a defense treaty between Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. They wanted military aid from the U.S. to counter the U.S.S.R. and thus a new organization was born.

What if Harry Truman thought it would would be a bad idea to be tied to Europe since it would most likely be Europe that is in need of aid and not the U.S. so the alliance isn't made? Is the Warsaw Pact still made? Is the Cold War a lot more peaceful?

(It could still be called NATO if Canada signs the defense treaty.)

America could really shot itself in the foot by doing that, no marshall plan/ not protecting West europe. The marshall plan re-built europe and gave America someone to trade with. If you let the commies take over they will send all the machinary to russia and abandon the allready poor europeans.

Also a more powerful USSR = more scary cold war
 
If the US does not join NATO, you have Soviet tanks in Paris rolling in front of the Eiffel tower within one month of commission of hostilities.
 
you know, you could tie the POD to this clear back to WW2 and D-Day.... from what I remember reading in "The Longest Day", the US command initially griped about the planned sectors for each invading unit; they realized that taking the westernmost sectors would mean that the US would be attacking into the central part of Europe, and be tied down there long after the war. They originally wanted to have the eastern sectors, so that the US troops would be operating along the coast/northern Europe instead, and could be pulled out much easier after the war. But in the end, the planning was too far along to change it, so it went on as in OTL.

So, let us suppose that the planning for D-Day went as the US command wanted... the US 1st Army lands on Juno and Sword beaches, and the Brits land on Utah, Omaha (ouch), and Gold... granted, there's a hell of a lot of PODs in this alone, but it could eventually lead to a US withdrawal of forces not long after the war....

I haven't read that book, but I think the post-war thing is a relatively minor consequence (after all, it's easy to pull troops out from where-ever in peace time).

Surely a much more important short term consideration, is by being close to the sea, you can (a) get supplies in easier in wartime, and (b) withdraw more easily if the invasion goes wrong.

The British logistics are probably inferior to the US, so if they are further inland, maybe their advance is slower. The US can't race ahead of the Brits because of political considerations, and excessive concern for the flanks. This gives the Germans more time to retreat from France. By the time the allies reach the Rhine (say Spring 1945), the Soviets are even further into Germany.
 
Ah -- No Multi Lateral NATO is not the same as no Bi Lateral treaties with Britain or France.

But - No Formal NATO Organization probably mean No Formal Warsaw type Pact either.
 
Top