Woodrow Wilson decolonize the world
- Thread starter myr
- Start date
The whole point of WWI was rivalry over colonies, so they tell him f-- off and the U.S. sits out the war. Opinion is divided over whether Wilson has gone mad, or whether he deliberately made an impossible demand because he wants an excuse to stay uninvolved.
Then the Lusitania gets sunk and the U.S. enters the war anyway, despite the lack of promises to decolonize after the war.
myr
Banned
What if he brings the proposal just before US declares the war and delays it by influencing the congress. Triple entante know that they cannot win the without US
Why Wilson would bother enforce Britain and France for decolonisation? He wasn't man who would had bothered rights of blacks or Asians. He even didn't bother rights of Afro-Americans and even made more segregation. And he wouldn't even succeed on that. Britain and France never would accept that even if Wilson would cut off all of supplies to Entente. And indeed I can't see Wilson doing that. Decolonisation wasn't thing on that time.
Presumably he wants them to decolonize after the war so the U.S. can swoop in and take the colonies; and hell no they're not gonna agree to that.
Wilson wasn't anymore president in '22 so no one wouldn't care what he is saying. They might even think that stroke has made Wilson senile.
Wasn't that sort of what happened in the '60's and '70's? The "old colonialists" stepped back, more out of economic self-interest (or necessity) than anything else, and the US, the USSR, and PRC swept in, to carve out their own new economic and ideological spheres of interest....
"Well, we don't call it 'colonialism', but....."
Also, Wilson lacks the power to make such demands: this is 1917 and Congress has the power to declare war, not the President. The joint resolution passed 82-6, so if Wilson tries to veto it then Congress will presumably override his veto, and threaten impeachment if he drags his feet.
Although having U.S. involvement in WWI blocked by a protracted power struggle between Congress and a hyper-isolationist Wilson would be an interesting ATL.
Although having U.S. involvement in WWI blocked by a protracted power struggle between Congress and a hyper-isolationist Wilson would be an interesting ATL.
Last edited:
myr
Banned
There is actually a word for it "neo-colonialism" which is a milder form of colonialismWasn't that sort of what happened in the '60's and '70's? The "old colonialists" stepped back, more out of economic self-interest (or necessity) than anything else, and the US, the USSR, and PRC swept in, to carve out their own new economic and ideological spheres of interest....
"Well, we don't call it 'colonialism', but....."
Not sure there is. much “argument” about Wilson. If he wasn't the most racist president he was in the running and he did more damage to race relation then any post Civil war president with his policies and rules and such.
And along the way his presidency did more things against freedom and free speech then any other president in the name of fighting WW1. Frankly of all presidents i think he was the worst. At least the pre civil war presidents had to run a country that was have “slave owner” so they either had to not go against that or were actively from Slave states, Willson was a racist 50 years after a lot of Americans died in a war that ended slavery in this country And he still implemented a lot of policies that did huge damage to race relations,
I cant see him giving a care for Afrca or Asia or India..
And along the way his presidency did more things against freedom and free speech then any other president in the name of fighting WW1. Frankly of all presidents i think he was the worst. At least the pre civil war presidents had to run a country that was have “slave owner” so they either had to not go against that or were actively from Slave states, Willson was a racist 50 years after a lot of Americans died in a war that ended slavery in this country And he still implemented a lot of policies that did huge damage to race relations,
I cant see him giving a care for Afrca or Asia or India..
Not sure where you get the idea the war was over colonies unless you are considering Alsace-Lorraine & Serbia colonies?
As apart from these Germany only had a few minor colonial territories & Austria-Hungary none & they were the major powers on one side.
myr
Banned
What if he has a change of attitude? Could US bargain for decolonization in exchange for allaince
I don't know why we are talking about racism. It is more then 'decolonization' doesn't really make much sense in 1916 or whatever. At least how the OP puts it.
So like, do you mean Australia or New Zealand? Those places don't want full independence at this stage, it makes no sense to them. Britain was the source of most economic trade, of national defense and cultural attachment. Americans saying the white dominions needed to be free would make zero sense.
So, do you mean like Malaya or Kenya? Sure there were plenty of locals who would like the British (or French or whoever) gone, since resistance to imperialism is not modern, but the ideological framework for such a transition isn't really in place. Even the Indian National Congress is still finding their bearings and they had the most advanced local nationalist bases. Places like Sudan or Nigeria? The request would make no sense.
Also, then you have places like Algeria which France considered part of France.
This entire idea is a non-starter and I think shows some misunderstanding of imperialism and colonialism in the war years.
So like, do you mean Australia or New Zealand? Those places don't want full independence at this stage, it makes no sense to them. Britain was the source of most economic trade, of national defense and cultural attachment. Americans saying the white dominions needed to be free would make zero sense.
So, do you mean like Malaya or Kenya? Sure there were plenty of locals who would like the British (or French or whoever) gone, since resistance to imperialism is not modern, but the ideological framework for such a transition isn't really in place. Even the Indian National Congress is still finding their bearings and they had the most advanced local nationalist bases. Places like Sudan or Nigeria? The request would make no sense.
Also, then you have places like Algeria which France considered part of France.
This entire idea is a non-starter and I think shows some misunderstanding of imperialism and colonialism in the war years.
Woodrow Wilson was the man who segregated the federal workforce. He screened Birth of a Nation in the White House. His talk about nations determining their own fate was intended for white people only. To do this you'd need to change his outlook. Big time. And the POD necessary to do that would be long before his presidency.