What kind of foreign policy would the US have had in the 1920s and 1930s had Charles Evans Hughes won the US Presidency back in 1916? Had Hughes won and managed to bring the US into the League of Nations (or some equivalent of it) after the end of World War I as well as get the US Senate ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France (thus creating a post-WWI military alliance between the US, Britain, and France), what would the US's foreign policy have looked like in the interwar era?

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 12:49:01 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
> What kind of foreign policy would the US have had in the 1920s and 1930s had Charles Evans Hughes won the US Presidency back in 1916? Had Hughes won and managed to bring the US into the League of Nations (or some equivalent of it) after the end of World War I as well as get the US Senate ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France (thus creating a post-WWI military alliance between the US, Britain, and France), what would the US's foreign policy have looked like in the interwar era?

Specifically, I'm wondering if the US could have actually realistically taken a more proactive role against Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany once they would have begun engaging in aggression in this TL, likely still in the 1930s.

On Tue, 18 May 2021 12:49:58 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Specifically, I'm wondering if the US could have actually realistically tak=
>en a more proactive role against Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Ge=
>rmany once they would have begun engaging in aggression in this TL, likely =
>still in the 1930s.

If FDR had pursued such a policy he would have had to get
Congressional support for a larger military. At one point in our TL
Canada had the larger single combat force in the UK (I'm talking about
the immediate post Dunkirk period when 1st Canadian division had just
arrived in the UK and Britain had fragments of divisions without most
of their equipment while 1st Canadian was consolidated, fully armed
but poorly trained and "green") If the Canadian army wasn't bigger
than the US active forces at that time it was close though obviously
the US Army and USMC had far more ability to expand their forces than
Canada.

But no questioni FDR couldn't possibily have pursued such a policy
without congressional support for rearmament.

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:02:37 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2021 12:49:58 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Specifically, I'm wondering if the US could have actually realistically tak=
> >en a more proactive role against Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Ge=
> >rmany once they would have begun engaging in aggression in this TL, likely =
> >still in the 1930s.
>
> If FDR had pursued such a policy he would have had to get
> Congressional support for a larger military. At one point in our TL
> Canada had the larger single combat force in the UK (I'm talking about
> the immediate post Dunkirk period when 1st Canadian division had just
> arrived in the UK and Britain had fragments of divisions without most
> of their equipment while 1st Canadian was consolidated, fully armed
> but poorly trained and "green") If the Canadian army wasn't bigger
> than the US active forces at that time it was close though obviously
> the US Army and USMC had far more ability to expand their forces than
> Canada.
>
> But no questioni FDR couldn't possibily have pursued such a policy
> without congressional support for rearmament.

If Hughes wins in 1916 and the Democrats win the US Presidency in the 1920s, then there is likely to be a Republican equivalent of FDR in 1932 if there is still a Great Depression on schedule. Any idea on whom this might be?