Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found out a couple of months ago that apparently even U.S. Senate Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge (a reservationist Republican during the Versailles Treaty negotiations, and a staunch opponent of Woodrow Wilson's) supported the idea of the U.S. having some sort of alliance with France (I would presume that the U.K. would also be included in such an alliance). My source for this information is page 160 in this book: Woodrow Wilson and the American Diplomatic Tradition: The Treaty Fight in ... - Lloyd E. Ambrosius - Google Books
Basically, the point of departure (from real life) here is that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's 1919 stroke is a bit more severe, thus killing Wilson rather than incapacitating him. Thus, Wilson's Vice President Thomas Marshall becomes the new U.S. President in 1919 and manages to compromise with Lodge's faction in the U.S. Senate to have the U.S. join the League of Nations with some reservations, as well as to implement a U.S. alliance with Britain and with France (which, as far as I know, was something which Wilson actually promised French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau at Versailles in early 1919).
Thus, in this scenario, the United States of America is a member of the League of Nations since 1919 or 1920, and the U.S. also has an alliance with Britain and France since that point in time.
How exactly do you think that history since 1919 (including World War II, if Hitler still eventually comes to power) in this scenario would have differed from real life?
Alternate History Question: A U.S.-British-French Alliance in 1919-1920 and Beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
I found out a couple of months ago that apparently even U.S. Senate Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge (a reservationist Republican during the Versailles Treaty negotiations, and a staunch opponent of Woodrow Wilson's) supported the idea of the U.S. having some sort of alliance with France (I would presume that the U.K. would also be included in such an alliance). My source for this information is page 160 in this book: Woodrow Wilson and the American Diplomatic Tradition: The Treaty Fight in ... - Lloyd E. Ambrosius - Google Books
Basically, the point of departure (from real life) here is that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's 1919 stroke is a bit more severe, thus killing Wilson rather than incapacitating him. Thus, Wilson's Vice President Thomas Marshall becomes the new U.S. President in 1919 and manages to compromise with Lodge's faction in the U.S. Senate to have the U.S. join the League of Nations with some reservations, as well as to implement a U.S. alliance with Britain and with France (which, as far as I know, was something which Wilson actually promised French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau at Versailles in early 1919).
Thus, in this scenario, the United States of America is a member of the League of Nations since 1919 or 1920, and the U.S. also has an alliance with Britain and France since that point in time.
How exactly do you think that history since 1919 (including World War II, if Hitler still eventually comes to power) in this scenario would have differed from real life?
If the USA, France and Britain were all officially allies in the 1930s, I guess the question first becomes whether the United States was willing to back not just France and Britain themselves or if the USA was willing to protect any country that the French and British choose to back.
In other words, it is one thing to try to convince the US Congress at the time to guarantee the British and French - and their empires, its a whole other ball game to convince the Congress to try to protect for example, the whole of Eastern Europe because France wants to.
If the USA, France and Britain were all officially allies in the 1930s, I guess the question first becomes whether the United States was willing to back not just France and Britain themselves or if the USA was willing to protect any country that the French and British choose to back.
In other words, it is one thing to try to convince the US Congress at the time to guarantee the British and French - and their empires, its a whole other ball game to convince the Congress to try to protect for example, the whole of Eastern Europe because France wants to.
I agree with your points here. Honestly, I doubt that the U.S. Congress would be willing to have the U.S. protect any country besides Britain and France even if the U.S. did have an alliance with these two countries. Thus, a good question here might be whether or not Britain and France would be willing to risk a war with Germany over some Eastern European country if such a move on their part might cause the U.S. to stay out of World War II (considering that in such a scenario, Britain and France would be the ones declaring war on Germany first, rather than the other way around).
Oh, and if this is not clear enough already, I would think that the U.S. would have, short of an extremely stupid move on the part of Britain and/or France, maintained this treaty of alliance even during the Great Depression in this scenario. After all, the idea of the U.S. abandoning its allies might not be perceived very well.
I agree with your points here. Honestly, I doubt that the U.S. Congress would be willing to have the U.S. protect any country besides Britain and France even if the U.S. did have an alliance with these two countries. Thus, a good question here might be whether or not Britain and France would be willing to risk a war with Germany over some Eastern European country if such a move on their part might cause the U.S. to stay out of World War II (considering that in such a scenario, Britain and France would be the ones declaring war on Germany first, rather than the other way around).
So many interesting possibilities.
Just one example. Consider the United States remains allied with Britain and France but its strictly a defensive alliance to defend them and their territories.
Now Hitler threatens Poland. Without help from Britain and France - Poland has only 3 choices.
1. Give into Hitler
2. Fight Germany
3. Poland turns to the Soviet Union to somehow get help (not likely but who knows)
Now if its option 3, the Soviet-Polish alliance, then the Soviets can then turn to the British and French and say "drop your defensive alliance with the Americans" and ally with us to protect Poland. If that happened then the Soviets, France and Britain would all be allied to defend Poland in 1939. Maybe Hitler might have backed down.
I found out a couple of months ago that apparently even U.S. Senate Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge (a reservationist Republican during the Versailles Treaty negotiations, and a staunch opponent of Woodrow Wilson's) supported the idea of the U.S. having some sort of alliance with France (I would presume that the U.K. would also be included in such an alliance). My source for this information is page 160 in this book: Woodrow Wilson and the American Diplomatic Tradition: The Treaty Fight in ... - Lloyd E. Ambrosius - Google Books
Basically, the point of departure (from real life) here is that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's 1919 stroke is a bit more severe, thus killing Wilson rather than incapacitating him. Thus, Wilson's Vice President Thomas Marshall becomes the new U.S. President in 1919 and manages to compromise with Lodge's faction in the U.S. Senate to have the U.S. join the League of Nations with some reservations, as well as to implement a U.S. alliance with Britain and with France (which, as far as I know, was something which Wilson actually promised French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau at Versailles in early 1919).
Thus, in this scenario, the United States of America is a member of the League of Nations since 1919 or 1920, and the U.S. also has an alliance with Britain and France since that point in time.
How exactly do you think that history since 1919 (including World War II, if Hitler still eventually comes to power) in this scenario would have differed from real life?
If the alliance is serious, I would imagine that Hitler is checked. That was the logic of the UN after WW2. USA, GB and France would be forminable. However, the USA was islationist back then, so even if they joined the League, I doubt its influence would have been significant because the public would not tolerate US backed police actions like it did after WW2.
Now if its option 3, the Soviet-Polish alliance, then the Soviets can then turn to the British and French and say "drop your defensive alliance with the Americans" and ally with us to protect Poland. If that happened then the Soviets, France and Britain would all be allied to defend Poland in 1939. Maybe Hitler might have backed down.
Just one example. Consider the United States remains allied with Britain and France but its strictly a defensive alliance to defend them and their territories.
Now Hitler threatens Poland. Without help from Britain and France - Poland has only 3 choices.
1. Give into Hitler
2. Fight Germany
3. Poland turns to the Soviet Union to somehow get help (not likely but who knows)
Now if its option 3, the Soviet-Polish alliance, then the Soviets can then turn to the British and French and say "drop your defensive alliance with the Americans" and ally with us to protect Poland. If that happened then the Soviets, France and Britain would all be allied to defend Poland in 1939. Maybe Hitler might have backed down.
If the Soviets had some brains, then in your scenario #3 they might be willing to establish an alliance with Britain and France even while Britain and France retain their U.S. alliance as well.
Also, I would think that Poland would probably have to pay a huge amount for Soviet assistance--perhaps the implementation of the Curzon Line as the new Polish-Soviet boundary?
1. If the alliance is serious, I would imagine that Hitler is checked.
2. That was the logic of the UN after WW2.
3. USA, GB and France would be forminable.
4. However, the USA was islationist back then, so even if they joined the League, I doubt its influence would have been significant because the public would not tolerate US backed police actions like it did after WW2.
1. The alliance would have been serious, but I have my doubts that the U.S. would have agreed to anything more than a purely defensive alliance.
2. Yep, though it didn't always work so well.
3. If they all fight together? Yes, certainly.
4. Agreed (though it is worth noting that even in real life, the U.S. wasn't completely isolationist during the 1920s; after all, it was still involved in things such as negotiating reparation payments for Germany and whatnot).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alternate History Question: A U.S.-British-French Alliance in 1919-1920 and Beyond
