Read one of earlier posts, British blockade agasinst the central European powers during WWI stung American exports in a large way.
This demonstrates that already by WWI, some 14 or so years after over taking the British as the dominant economic power in the world she was already a nation enjoying a large part of her wealth derived from foreign export trade.
The Ford Motor Co., being a good example.
The bulk of American overseas trade was in the Atlantic and in the Caribbean. Her trade across the pacific at the time was small and nothing like what it is now. The US understood that the better part of her trade was as vital to the British as it was to the Americans, that Britain had already become significantly dependent upon the US in any serious war, and it is very unlikely for the US and UK to be found on the opposite sides of any conflict. It is also unlikely for the US to find herself in independent conflict with another European power with Britain being on the same side. Thus America would be the automatic beneficiary of Britain's cruiser fleet for trade protection.
I was speaking of her large trade with other European powers from 1900-1925 say, not trade in the pacific, not trade in the Atlantic or Caribbean.
The USA's European trade in this time period was what would also be effecting their Washington thinking.
It seems to me you talking of a later time frame when your thinking isolationist.
I agree though their respective naval strengths could be mutually benefial by the 1930s, but then again there was a lot of Anglo-American antagonism earlier in the 1920s.
I did say it was the Republican position to "let the Europeans fight it out", and "sell food and materials to both sides".
I am sure in the simplistic minds of the Congress of the time, no power in Europe would interrupt US trade with the "enemy", and risk an administrative shutdown of trade by the command of Washington. It would be in their interests to leave US ships alone.
Principals like Lindburgh and Ford were very supportive of Hitler and expressed this by pressing for isolation.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Maybe I'm still not clear,
I thinking of USA trade with central european powers at the time of the Washington Treaty i.e. 1920.
Thus way before the USA became isolationist and kept a distant watch on the rise of facist governments in central European states (Italy, Spain, Germany) in the 1930s.
Another point I'd like to make clear.
Whilst Britain, France, Italy, Germany were all busy towards full industrial mobilisation to war production from 1915-1918 and then busy with reconstruction 1919-1920 the USA had spent her 1915-1917 period penentrating many foreign trade markets due to little competition.
Thus again increasing her foreign exports, and global commitments by the time of the Washington Treaty negotiations.
I guess in a nutshell I think your downplaying the USA's clear and increasing need to protect her foreign trade by 1920 at the conference.
I am not saying she needs as many cruisers as the British, what I am saying is she knows she is going to start to need more than she had a decade earlier.
Don't forget, those mobilized men cannot work their farms. The fields on which they are based, etc. were agriculturally unproductive.
When WW.I occurs, you lose an entire generation of people who knew how to farm, dig coal, work the factory or whatever.
If the USA could have stayed out of WW.I altogether, they would have made the most money possible supporting the unproductive forces on the one hand and the recovery afterwards on the part of both sides.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
