If the US ratifies the Security Treaty with Britain and France in 1919, is the US going to have a larger military in the 1930s?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
If the US ratifies the Security Treaty with Britain and France in 1919 (the treaty whose ratification Wilson promised to Clemenceau at the Paris Peace Conference only to have him largely ignore this treaty and focus on the League of Nations instead--and ultimately getting neither of these things ratified due to his intransigence), is the US going to have a larger military in the 1930s?

The reason that I am asking about this is that a US that has a security treaty (essentially an alliance) with Britain and France in the interwar years could potentially be paying more attention to developments in Europe in the 1930s. While this treaty would only obligate the US to come to France's aid in the event of *unprovoked* German aggression against France, some people might nevertheless view the spirit of this treaty as morally (if not legally) compelling the US to fight together with Britain and France in the event that European security will become threatened once again. In turn, this raises the question of whether the US would have been more willing to rearm in the 1930s in this scenario due to it taking the possibility of US entry into another European war more seriously.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? Also, *if* the US indeed rearms more in the 1930s in this scenario, do you think that the US is going to be able to send enough troops to France in time to prevent France's fall?

In addition, as a side note, do you think that WWII is still likely to start over Poland in this scenario or could it start over the Sudetenland/Czechoslovakia instead?