Wilson has a major stroke in 1906

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

In 1906, Woodrow Wilson suffered a minor stroke. It caused some vision impairment, but nothing major. Well, what if the stroke was bigger and he died or became a vegetable? I'm thinking of writing a TL on this, but I want to gauge interest first. There's no point in writing a TL that no one wants to read.

[Derek Jackson]

Who were the other Democrats in 1912. I have seen that there were 46 ballots in OTL?

If someone like Bryan won would that have forced Republicans to unite?

I do find this an interesting idea.

[General Mung Beans]

If a reactionary Democrat is nominated then Theodore Roosevelt may very well win the presidential election.

[Wendell]

There were a wide variety of Democratic candidates available in 1912. Several of them could have won the presidency IMO.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

I think that Champ Clark would win the nomination seeing as how he was the favorite going into the convention IOTL. The only reason Wilson won the nomination was that William Jennings Bryan convinced the left-wing of the party to unite against Clark, and eventually threw his support behind Wilson. In order for someone else to take the nomination from Clark, he would need to emerge as the only viable alternative to Clark, and thus unite the left-wing as Wilson did IOTL. Judson Harmon would be a good candidate for this, or maybe Oscar Underwood (though he was far more likely as a VP candidate than a Presidential one). Perhaps Bryan himself could run again, he was only 52. Fourth time's a charm maybe?

Either way, I think a Democrat is gets elected. The Republican vote was split between Roosevelt and Taft. I could see it be a little closer with a weaker Democratic candidate, but I can't see either of them winning the election. Unless we somehow butterfly away the animosity between the two, although that would be a huge stretch (possibly even ASB) considering a POD only six years earlier. If I write the TL (which I'm leaning towards doing), there's no way I'm using butterflies to justify a huge plot twist like that.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Alright, I've decided to write this TL. I'll post the first installment either tonight or tomorrow. I'm going to write it in a similar style to statichaos' World of Laughter, World of Tears, since that TL worked out so well. I'll probably advance at a quicker pace though. I don't have the attention span to spend 13 pages on 6 years.

[pipisme]

The Progressives wanted a conservative Democrat to win the nomination in 1912 as they would gain the support of progressive Democrats. After Wilson was nominated TR wrote that he (TR) expected to lose the presidential election.

If a conservative Democrat such as Champ Clark were nominated TR could have won the election. The reduction in the Democrat vote could have resulted in Taft winning states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Wyoming where he came a reasonably close second to Wilson in OTL. Combined with TR winning states where he came a good second to Wilson such as Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, and Oregon, plus a few more, this might have resulted in TR winning an overall majority in the electoral college.

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Or, at least an election thrown into the House of Representatives.

has anyone ever done that one? It might be interesting. I think Taft would be 3rd in electoral votes, though; and, he'd probably be told by TR, "Look, we've got a few older justices, you throw your suport behidn me you've got that Supreme Court position you've always wanted, first appointment I can make." Which he might accept, as I don't think he'd have much chance of winning.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Alright, here's the beginning. I welcome any comments you may have.

Prologue: The Point of Divergence
“Woodrow Wilson was a professor who served on the faculty at Princeton University from 1890 until 1902 when he was appointed as the University’s President. Upon taking office, he began implementing a series of reforms that made him quite controversial among some of the University’s elite alumni . . .
. . . His tenure as President of Princeton University was tragically cut short in 1906, when a debilitating stroke left him completely blind and without the use of his left arm. It was also rumored that him mental capabilities were diminished in certain areas, a fact that he and his family always denied . . . Though he attempted to continue on as President, these considerable disabilities eventually proved to be too large an obstacle to his administrative duties, and he resigned four months after his stroke.”

Excerpts from The History of Princeton University: The First Two Centuries. By Lowell Thomas (1947)


Chapter 1: The Election of 1912

“Very few people remember how contentious the 1912 Democratic National Convention really was, since it was so overshadowed by the Republican Convention of the same year. Unlike the Republican Convention, which was torn apart by a battle of titans, the Democrats had a power vacuum. Going into the convention, the leading candidate was the comparatively unknown James ‘Champ’ Clark. There were many liberals however, who found the conservative Clark to be an unacceptable candidate . . .”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)


“Bryan? Well, let’s just say that he wasn’t exactly Champ’s biggest fan. As I recall, he’d have done anything to stop Speaker Clark from getting the nomination. He tried at first to throw his support behind me, and when that didn’t work, there was even talk that he’d try to take it himself again. The problem was that Clark had majority, just barely, but he did have one. Under the party rules at the time, you needed a two-thirds majority to take the nomination. So we not only had to unite the anti-Clark forces, we had to peel off some of Clark’s own delegates, or at least stalemate him until he would settle for a compromise candidate. With all due respect to Bill Bryan, neither of us was popular enough to lead something like that. Anyway, people eventually got tired of repeating the same process over and over again, with Clark always getting a majority, but never a large enough one. Our support gradually diminished, and when Underwood dropped out and threw his support behind Clark, it was the last straw. Clark finally won on the 51st ballot.

Fmr. Governor Judson Harmon (D-OH) discussing the 1912 Presidential Election in a radio interview (1926)


“Clark Wins Popular Vote, Electoral College Too Close To Call”

Headline from The New York Times November 6, 1912 (the day after election day)


“Frankly, I find it miraculous that the election was even close. The nation had far more Republicans than Democrats. That’s why they’d held the White House for 44 of the last 52 years. We had a clear victory in the popular vote, but it was just under 37%. Roosevelt had 30%, and Taft had only 25%. Yet even once the people had spoken, we still needed a little help to win.”

Former Vice President Oscar Underwood in his book Stepping Back from the Brink of War (1924)


“As I understand it, President Roosevelt was trying to make a deal with President Taft. Clark only held a plurality of the Electoral College, but with a strangle-hold on the House of Representatives, it was just as good as a majority. That’s why we needed to stop him there by making a deal with Taft. Unfortunately Taft rebuffed all of Roosevelt’s attempts at bargaining. He tried the whole ‘for the good of the party’ angle, when that didn’t work he told him it was for ‘for the good of the country,’ I even heard he offered him a Supreme Court appointment, but Taft wouldn’t budge. ‘A spiteful little creature’ I believe are the words Roosevelt used. Though how a man can be little at 300 pounds is beyond me.”

George Perkins in Memoirs of a Failed Revolution: The History of the Progressive Party (1928)


“Clark Challenges Results in Five States”

Headline from The New York Times November 12, 1912


“Champ always underestimated the animosity between Taft and Roosevelt. He thought that if he couldn’t get a majority in the Electoral College that they would unite to defeat him. He tried to get Wisconsin and New Mexico from Taft; and Oregon, Kansas, and Montana from Roosevelt. We were only 21 votes away from the 266 we needed for a majority. Those states represented a total of 35. As it turns out we only managed to flip Wisconsin’s 13, but we won anyway.”

Former Vice President Oscar Underwood in his book Stepping Back from the Brink of War (1924)


“Ten Taft Delegates defect to Roosevelt, Both Clark and Roosevelt fall short of 266”

Headline form The New York Times January 7, 1913 (the day after the Electoral College vote)


“Following that the result was assured. After failing to convince Taft himself to throw his weight behind us, we had tried to convert the individual delegates to come over to his side. We got a few but not enough, and it later led to a whole bunch of "faithless elector" laws. No one had a majority, so we went to the House, where Clark won by a large margin. At the time I though that the end of the world was upon us.”

George Perkins in Memoirs of a Failed Revolution: The History of the Progressive Party (1928)


Next – Chapter 2: Staying Neutral

Results of 1912 Presidential Election
James "Champ" Clark / Oscar W. Underwood 258
Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt / Hiram Johnson 231 (221 + 10 faithless electors)
William H. Taft / Nicholas Butler 42 (52 - 10 faithless electors)

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Sorry it took me so long to write Chapter 2. It was due to a mixture of lots of research and lots of writer's block. Anyway, I hope to make up for it by writing Chapter 3 really fast since I have some time off school. I know this TL starts out kind of slow, but trust me it'll get better once I get into WWI and its affects. Here's Chapter 2:

Chapter 2: Staying Neutral

“There is little to say about Clark’s domestic policies. During the first few years of his administration, he instituted the Great Federal Reserve Compromise. He also attempted to continue Roosevelt and Taft’s trust-busting measures, but he met with far less success than his predecessors . . . The accomplishment that he is most remembered for is his furthering of America’s isolationist policies. This, of course, included the appointment of fervent pacifist A. Mitchell Palmer to Secretary of State. By the time war broke out in 1914, Clark was firmly committed to protecting U.S. neutrality, a commitment which would be vigorously tested over the next few years.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)

“War breaks out in Europe!”

Headline from The New York Times August 2, 1914

“The Great European War began with a burst of patriotic enthusiasm. Europe had not seen a full-scale war in some time, and the populations of many nations were itching for a fight. This initial euphoria would quickly die down however, once the realities of war set in.”

From Idiots Who Wander into a War Zone By Ann Blunt (1944)

“Lusitania sunk; Rumors of Americans on board”

Headline from The New York Times May 8, 1915

“Needless to say, the loss of 128 Americans on board the Lusitania is a tragedy, and my sympathy goes out to the families of those lost. Nevertheless, these were very avoidable losses. This administration has warned several times of the dangers of travelling to Europe, and has attempted to discourage all Americans from doing so. America has neither the desire nor the resources to protect every American who voluntarily endangers his own life by going abroad and entering a known war zone, as was the case here. We do not fault the Germans for their tactics. This is war. They were simply firing on a vessel that was thought to be carrying British munitions, something that they are completely justified in doing under their current state of war with the United Kingdom. Let me just reiterate that the United States is still fully committed to neutrality in this war, and that we will not interfere in any manner whatsoever.”

Text from President Clark’s speech to a gathering of reporters on May 10, 1915

“President Clark’s speech regarding the sinking of the Lusitania may seem a bit callous in retrospect, but at the time it captured the general feeling of the American people. While the often quoted line that “American has no sympathy for idiots who wander into war zones” is almost definitely apocryphal (it does not appear in any contemporary transcript of the speech), the sentiment certainly would have resonated if he had said it, and would not have been out of character for the Clark administration’s attitude towards the war.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)

“The Republican party suffered from a dearth of candidates in 1916. No one wanted to run against someone as popular as President Clark. Ideally they would have liked to run Charles Hughes, but he didn’t want to waste time running a race he could not win, so he declined to seek the nomination. The convention was split for a while between our man John Weeks, and Taft’s wing, who favored Elihu Root. Secretly, I was hoping they would nominate Root, simply so the Progressive Party could nominate Weeks and survive. I knew we couldn’t win that election, but I was still holding out hope that, over time, the Progressive Party could replace the Republicans as the second major party in American politics. However, after the fifth ballot, the party bosses came to a compromise and nominated Charles Fairbanks, the former Vice President who was acceptable to all. The Republicans were re-united, and I honestly believe that that was the day that the Progressive Party died.”

George Perkins in Memoirs of a Failed Revolution: The History of the Progressive Party (1928)

“President Clark Re-Elected”

Headline from The New York Times November 8, 1916 (the day after election day)

“Fairbanks actually did a lot better than any of us expected. Clark was overwhelmingly popular, and we painted our opponent as a crazy imperialist. We expected to win in a landslide, and although it wasn’t close, it wasn’t as big a victory as we’d hoped for.”

Champ Clark’s campaign manager, Charles Murphy, in his book How to Elect a President (1925)

Results of 1916 Presidential Election
James “Champ” Clark / Oscar W. Underwood 385
Charles W. Fairbanks / Theodore Burton 146
(Map at the bottom of this post)

“British release intercepted German telegram; Forgery suspected”

Headline from The New York Times March 2, 1917

“In his farewell address over twelve decades ago, George Washington implored us to avoid foreign entanglements. This is just as crucial now as it was then. Europe is embroiled in a bloody and barbarous war, a war we shall have nothing to do with . . . As you’ve probably heard by now, the British claim to have intercepted a German communication pertaining to a potentially dangerous alliance with Mexico. We have been informed by our intelligence agencies that this document is a forgery! Let me take a moment to say to all those gathered here today, to European governments who are assuredly watching from abroad, and to the American people: WE WILL NOT BE SWAYED FROM NEUTRALITY!”

An excerpt from Champ Clark’s second inaugural address

“To this day it is unknown whether the so-called “Zimmerman Telegram” was real or not. The diplomat in question, Arthur Zimmerman, denied it to his deathbed. All in all, I believe that the British government makes a more compelling case for it’s authenticity than the Germans do against it. However that could be because most of the German records from that era are still sealed . . . Whether the telegram was real or not, as soon as Clark made the emphatic statement that it was a British forgery meant to draw the US into the war, its fate was sealed. As far as the US government was concerned, the Zimmerman Telegram would always be considered fake.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)

Next - Chapter 3: An American-less war

[Thucydides]

I like this, So far it seems plausible and I really like your format.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Alright, when I started this TL, I wasn't thinking far enough ahead, so I have a retcon. In the first chapter I referred to Former Vice President Oscar Underwood's book Stepping Back from the Brink of War. That book no longer exists, and those exerpts are now from Charles Murphy's book How to Elect a President. I have other plans for Underwood.

[Tom_B]

With a strong neutralist like Clark as President I don't see the Zimmerman telegram even happening. One additional reason for Hughes not to run would be to stay on the Supreme Court. Not resigning from it would have subtle butterfly effects by itself. Another effect is that Hearst would not be marginalized during the American involvement in the war and would remain a Democratic Party cheerleader.

Likewise Mencken's out of fashion period would be eliminated.

Oh and no Prohibition. also Storyville remains open slowing (but not aborting) the diffusion of jazz.

[NomadicSky]

If the US stayed neutral that would probably mean a stalemate and negotiated peace in Europe.

Without Wilson's 14 points the 20th century would be radically different even if the US does enter the world war.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

With a strong neutralist like Clark as President I don't see the Zimmerman telegram even happening.

I thought about just butterflying the Zimmerman Telegram, but decided not to. It just seems to easy to butterfly away an event that I find inconvenient. Plus, Wilson was a "strong neutralist" for most of his first term. It wasn't until the sinking of the Lusitania that he began to consider war. Even then, he still had hopes of remaning neutral until Germany renewed its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram was intercepted. While Clark's rhetoric is a lot stronger than Wilson's, their actual policies and actions are pretty similar.

Anyway, the reason I had Clark react to the ZT differently than Wilson did is because Clark was even more committed to peace than Wilson was. When the ZT originally was released, public opinion in the US was split about its authenticity. The Germans knew that Wilson was a total anglo-phile, and would believe anything the British told him, so Zimmerman admitted to sending it so that the Germans could then try to do damage control. ITTL, Clark immediately rejects the ZT as a blatant attempt by the British government to draw the US into the war. Zimmerman never confesses, and public opinion remains somewhat split (there will always be conspiracy theories) but most people believe the President.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

If the US stayed neutral that would probably mean a stalemate and negotiated peace in Europe.

Shhh! Don't spoil the story. ;)

Seriously though, that's exactly where I was going with this.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Chapter 3: An American-less war

“In late 1916 and early 1917, the Germans had been making contingency plans in case Clark violated his campaign promise to keep the US neutral. They had plans for a large offensive that was to take place in late 1917 or early 1918 in an attempt to win the war quickly before American resources could be fully deployed. This would have been essentially a desperate attempt to win the war, and whether successful or not would have resulted in heavy casualties. It has been a topic of much debate amongst military strategists as to whether such an offensive would have been successful. Following Clark’s second inaugural address however, both sides realized that the US was not going to join the war, and the sense of urgency for such an operation was lessened.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)

"Russia drops out of war!"

Headline from The New York Times January 16, 1918

"The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, is the classic case of a compromise that pleases neither side. From an objective stand point, the Germans gave the Soviet Union surprisingly good terms for peace. In hindsight, it is quite obvious that this was because they needed the troops for a build-up on the western front. However, contemporary sources denounced the Kaiser as a weak leader. The Germans did strong-arm Russia into releasing some land as independent states, but not enough (in the minds of the German citizenry) to compensate for the loss of life on the eastern front. The Soviets were equally disappointed, due to their unreal expectations of not having to cede any land whatsoever."

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)

“1917 and 1918 were odd years for the First Great European War. They were odd not because of the events contained within them, but rather because of the lack of such events. There were a few minor skirmishes, but nothing major aside from the continuing turmoil in Russia. There was a good reason for that. Once the door was completely slammed shut on American intervention, a self-perpetuating cycle of inaction set in. Because of inaction, there was civil unrest. Because of the unrest, the respective governments wanted to end the war quickly. Because they wanted a quick end to the war, both sides ceased to start small battles in favor of planning for one large back-breaking offensive. The cessation of battle was seen by the people as inaction, which spawned even more unrest. By the winter of 1918, this cycle had come to a head. The people were furious at their governments, the war had ground to an almost complete halt, and both sides had amassed huge armies at key points on the western front in preparation for large offensives. The front was a powder keg, and each side was prepared for an endgame, the only question was: Who would light a match first?”

From Idiots Who Wander into a War Zone By Ann Blunt (1944)

“Today will be the beginning of the end. Operation Magi is set to begin at 0800. It is currently 0715. I simply felt the need to jot down a few words for posterity. Today, we have amassed the greatest army I have seen in all my years in the service of the crown. We have infantry, armored landships (which the common troops have dubbed “tanks”), and aeroplanes. We have everything we need to make this offensive successful. The German menace will soon be driven back from whence they came.”

From the diary of Douglas Haig, leader of the British contingent for the Boxing Day offensive, dated December 26, 1918

“That morning ol’ Haig gave us a speech that I suppose he thought was inspiring. ‘The glory of the Empire’ and all that. A bit corny if you ask me. He told us that we were a part of the largest army he’d ever seen, and that by next Christmas we’d be home. I wasn’t holding out hope for it. We’d been told that the last four Christmases. I knew that, whatever the results of what is now called ‘The Boxing Day Offensive,’ it was going to be big and it was going to be bloody. I guess the idea was to attack the day after the Christmas holiday so that they wouldn’t be expecting it. Who launches a massive assault so near the holidays? As we marched over the hill and saw the army assembled against us, an ironic though crossed my mind: Haig will have to recant that rubbish about being the largest army ever. We were now officially the second largest army he’d ever seen.”

An account of an anonymous British soldier from Stories of Common Soldiers: An Oral History of the Great European Wars By Joe Gould (1945)

“The Boxing Day Offensive was disastrous for both sides. The British and French forces had finally put together enough troops for their long-awaited offensive. But when the offensive finally came, it ran headlong into a German force that had been massing for an offensive of their own (which was originally slated for New Year’s Day). The next month was the bloodiest time of the war. The allies had gained some ground in some areas, and the Germans had gained equally negligible land in others. Both sides claimed their respective offensives to be rousing successes. The people didn’t believe it for a moment, and many historians cite the offensive as one of the largest contributors to the revolutions of 1920.”

From Idiots Who Wander into a War Zone By Ann Blunt (1944)

Next – Chapter 4: A Negotiated Peace and The Year of Revolutions

[TNF]

Year of Revolutions? The spectre of Communism, perchance?

Good timeline so far. Keep it up.

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Interesting. What of the Spanish Flu? Without the American troops going over, I presume it's more contained to American in TTL - perhaps instead just seen as the biggest American epidemic ever - but one would think it would at least spread a little overseas. (It got to China in OTL, after all.)

I love that title "Idiots who wander intoa war zone." A book that probably describes feelings about the whole war, after what looks to have just been a bloody stalemate.

One baseball note - Grover Alexander may finish with 400 wins now. Do the Phillies trade him anyway? One could argue they did out of fear he'd be drafted, but their ownership was so lousy they might have anyway.

the 1920 Olympics were in Antwerp; will there be time to set them up with an extended mess in Europe? I imagine the United States could offer to host as an emergency.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

I just edited chapter 3 because I forgot to get the USSR out of the war in 1918 (duh!). Chapter 4 is coming soon.

[NomadicSky]

I'm looking forward to it.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Hey guys, I didn't get as far as I wanted to in this chaper, because real life got in the way. I'm also hoping to post a map of post-war Europe when I post the next Chapter.

Chapter 4: A Negotiated Peace

“Following the bloodbath that was the Boxing Day Offensive, an armistice was inevitable. Even if the governments involved had wanted to fight on (which by this point they most definitely did not), they no longer had the resources, the manpower, or the popular support to do so. The long awaited armistice finally came on April 4, 1919. However, to paraphrase a great philosopher ‘politics is merely the continuation of war by other means.’ To say that the peace conferences were contentious would be the understatement of the century. This contention began when the Europeans couldn’t even decide where to host the peace conference. President Clark eventually offered the European powers a place to negotiate, but made it very clear from the outset that he would not be involved in the proceedings in any way.”

From Idiots Who Wander into a War Zone By Ann Blunt (1944)

“Those who had been incompetent in war, proved themselves to be equally so in peace. As the peace conference dragged on, the proletariat began to grow even more distrustful of the bourgeoisie than they had been during the war. This provided a wave of popular support for SFIO, and out great leader, Ludovic Frossard.”

From History of the Grand Revolution By Jaques Doriot (1939)

“PRESIDENT DEAD!”

Headline from The New York Times September 5, 1919.

“President Clark’s sudden death wreaked havoc on the nation’s emotions. Vice President Underwood was sworn in, and immediately pledged to continue all of the policies that his popular predecessor had begun. However, within days of taking office, he ever so slightly breached Clark’s long standing policy of isolationism. He travelled to Boston, and took a seat at the negotiating table.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)

“Peace in Europe”

Headline from The New York Times January 2, 1920

“By assisting in the negotiations of the Treaty of Boston, President Oscar Underwood certainly did the world a great service. He served as an objective voice to mediate between the warring Europeans. This resulted in a very fair treaty. Germany was allowed to keep the possessions that it had gained in their earlier treaty with the Soviets. The British, French, and Japanese would be allowed to keep the German colonies that they had seized during the course of the war, but the Germans would get to annex a large chunk of Belgium. The border between Austria-Hungary and Italy, which had been fluctuating constantly throughout the war, would return to its pre-war position. All nations would pay their own huge war debts, and neither side was forced to accept responsibility for the conflict. In hindsight, Underwood should be considered a diplomatic genius, but by constructing the treaty, he had done the one thing that President Clark had always been careful to avoid: staking his political fate on events beyond his control in Europe. Underwood's mistake that would eventually prove to be a costly one.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)

“So who won The First Great European War? Well, that’s hard to say. From a purely European perspective, the answer would be Germany. They were the only nation that gained territory in Europe. Nonetheless, we cannot really declare them the victor, as they lost their entire overseas empire. The British gained more land area than anyone else, getting a lion’s share of the former German possessions, but they were of very little strategic value. Perhaps a better question would be: Who lost the First Great European War? To that the answer is obvious. Everyone involved lost. That would become clear over the next year.”

From Idiots Who Wander into a War Zone By Ann Blunt (1944)

Next - Chapter 5: The Year of Revolutions

[Cylon_Number_14]

Ever planning to continue this timeline? You left quite an ominous cliffhanger. Having recently read Lies My Teacher Told Me I support any timeline in which Woodrow Wilson's misogynistic white supremacy is not allowed to fester at the top of the US cultural pyramid.

Also, your take on how WW1 ends I think is the most likely. I'm looking forward to the second "Springtime of Peoples" that you hint at...

[MRig]

I'm gonna second the skinjob. I was really getting into this timeline and would love to see it continued.

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

Bump.
It's intresting.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Sorry guys. I had some disruptive events in my life over the past few months, so I didn't even visit AH.com again until a week or so ago. By that time, I'd almost completely forgotten this TL. Gald to hear you like it. Give me a few days and I'll write another chapter.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Here's the map I have of Europe and Africa just after the Treaty of Boston is signed. It shows Germany's annexation of part of Belgium, the formerly German African colonies that are now either British or French, the German/Austro-Hungarian puppet states that are carved out of the USSR, the Austro-Hungarian gains in the Balkans, and the Ottoman loss of the Arabian peninsula to three different warlords (which I'm going to briefly explain in the next chapter).

[Joke Insurance]

Nobody has mentioned what it would be like if Thomas R. Marshall became president?

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Alright, here's a really long chapter to compensate for the long gap. Btw, I'm going to do a few more maps to go along with this chapter.

Chapter 5: The Year of Revolutions

“The ‘Year of Revolutions,’ thought cliché is a very apt term for what took place in 1920. While it would be overly simplistic to say that the revolutions were directly caused by the war, it would be difficult to underestimate the degree to which the war aggravated the already existing discontent. The details of the various revolutions, rebellions, and upheavals are enough to fill a whole other book. It suffices to say that by the end of the year, Europe was inexorably changed.”

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)

“The end of the war brought economic hardship in Europe. Even before the Treaty of Boston had been signed, inflation skyrocketed as governments struggled to cover the war bonds that were beginning to mature. The economic difficulties increased the distrust of government that was already at an all-time high. As the various nations demobilized, many able-bodies former soldiers were left without jobs. These unemployed masses found that the sense of purpose provided by revolutionary movements were too attractive to pass up . . .”

“ . . . As the heart of the western front, France suffered greatly from the long and bloody conflict. So it was no surprise that it was the first to experience the effects of revolutionary sentiment. Throughout the war, the young Ludovic Frossard had been critical of the existing government. As the peace talks dragged on, this criticism became even more pronounced, and by the time the economic troubles began, he was on the verge of advocating outright rebellion. . .”

“. . . Germany was unique in that, while many other nations were experiencing a revolution, Germany had two to contend with. While Friedrich Ebert’s SPD had been largely discredited as a result of the war, Hugo Haase’s anti-war USPD still had popular support and was advocating the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a German Republic. Meanwhile, the “Spartacist Leauge,” as they were colloquially called, demanded that the government be overthrown in favor of Soviet-style communism . . .”

“. . . Austria-Hungary experienced more rebellions then revolutions. Even in late 1919 during the peace negotiations, rebellions were springing up among the various ethnic minorities. Unlike the rest of Europe, these were not over ideological reasons, but rather over racial and cultural ones. By the midpoint of 1920, it seemed like every tiny little village across the country-side was organizing their own militias to rebel . . .”

“. . . The Ottoman Empire had probably the least disruptive of the 1920 revolutions. Their main revolutions had come during the war, when three separate warlords rebelled and each took part of the Arabian peninsula. These losses further weakened the people’s faith in the CUP government, and in democracy in general . . .”
From The Year of Revolutions By Benjamin Hatfield (1952)

“The French Presidential election of 1920 was controversial to say the least. In the Parliamentary election of November 1919, Ludovic Frossard’s SFIO had won a plurality of the votes cast. Yet the other parties had united to form a center-right coalition. This meant that when the new President elected in January of 1920 would almost surely be from the ruling coalition, led by the ARD. Frossard was outraged and announced that unless the new parliament ‘respected the will of the proletariat’ then they would rise in open revolt against the ‘tyrannical bourgeoisie government.’”

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)

“When British Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law saw the potential for instability in France, he slowed the rate at which British troops were being withdrawn. If a Communist Revolution really did break out in earnest, he wanted a British contingent in the country to assist the existing government.”

From The Year of Revolutions By Benjamin Hatfield (1952)

“It was at this point that the outgoing President of the tyrannical ‘Republic’ ordered that our glorious leader be arrested. He fled Paris for the proletariat stronghold of Lyon. When the imperialists elected Paul Deschanel as their new President, Ludovic Frossard stayed true to his word. He raised an army and on the first of February, marched out of Lyon, headed for Paris.”

From History of the Grand Revolution By Jaques Doriot (1939)

“Initially, Ludovic Frossard’s ‘Grand Army of the People’ can hardly be called an army. It was only a disorganized band of untrained and poorly armed citizens whose level of hatred for the government had reached critical mass. Its only strength was its size and its determination. Frossard was clever however. He took the most circuitous route from Lyon to Paris that he could. Stopping at many towns along the way and recruiting more men for his militia. By the time he reached Paris in mid-Frebruary, he had added to his force several thousand unemployed former soldiers who were willing to fight for his cause. Upon the arrival of the army in Paris, the entire city was thrown into an uproar, with most of the crowds supporting Frossard. The military forces did their best to put down the uprising, but to no avail. Deschanel and the French government fled Paris, and started a counter insurgency, thus sparking the French Civil War between the Republicans and the Socialists which would last the better part of the year. . .”

“. . . In March of 1920, Prime Minister Law saw that if he was going to act, the time needed to be now. He ordered troops in Northern France to cease their demobilization activities and proceed with all haste to assist in attempting to re-establish France’s republican government. The British populace would not stand for another war however, and riots broke out throughout the country. Within a week of the order, parliament passed a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. His final act before resigning was to rescind his intervention order. The new elections would result in the first ever Labour government, under Ramsey MacDonald.”

From The Year of Revolutions By Benjamin Hatfield (1952)

“The attempt by the imperialist British to intervene in our grand revolution backfired terribly. The foreign interlopers only strengthened the resolve of the French people to complete the work of establishing a true workers’ utopia.”

From History of the Grand Revolution By Jaques Doriot (1939)

“The French Revolution was not the only one taking place in March. The Ottoman people, furious over the losses they’d experienced in the previous decade of democracy decided that they were better off under the absolute religious leadership of the Caliph. Much of the military sided with these revolutionaries, so the Parliament was dissolved and Mehmed VI became the sole ruler of the Ottoman Empire. So, in much the same way that democracy began in the Ottoman Empire barely a decade earlier, it abruptly ended.”

From The Year of Revolutions By Benjamin Hatfield (1952)

“By June of 1920, Germany was feeling the heat. On one side, France was in shambles, on the other Austria-Hungary was struggling to hold on to its empire. The European recession was nearing its low point, and despite his wartime promises, the Kaiser had yet to hold democratic elections. During the month of June, three important events took place. On the fifth, the workers in Bavaria organized a general strike in protest of the government. On the fourteenth, the Reichstag demanded that Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg and Generalquartiermeister Erich Ludendorff return the immense political power that they had accumulated during the war. On the nineteenth, the Kaiser (who was by now only a puppet of the military leaders) permanently dissolved the Reichstag.”
From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)

“While revolts broke out throughout Europe, on the other side of the Atlantic, America’s political machines were gearing up for a rather different sort of contest. The Democrats were split between incumbent President Oscar Underwood, who had only been President for a few months, and Secretary of State Alexander Mitchell Palmer, who was long speculated to be President Clark’s desired successor. The Republicans on the other hand, had no doubts. While he did face some minor challenges, no one had any doubt that Frank Lowden, the popular Governor of Illinois, would be the nominee. As a nod to the more progressive wing, Hiram Johnson, Theodor Roosevelt’s one time Progressive Party running mate, was chosen to run alongside Lowden in the election.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)

“Throughout the month of July, mutinies broke out in the German armed forces. The lower ranks had lost all confidence in their leadership during the war, and this naked grab for power made it even more obvious in their minds that something must be done. They threatened to seize power and restore the Reichstag. Meanwhile, in Bavaria, the workers’ strike erupted into a communist revolution, led by the Spartacist league . . .”

From The Year of Revolutions By Benjamin Hatfield (1952)

“Yeah, it was deadlocked for a while. If Clark hadn’t died Palmer woulda’ been a shoe-in for the nomination, but sitting Presidents don’t generally give up without a fight. Underwood thought that he deserved a shot at keeping his job. His poll numbers weren’t bad at the time, so eventually the convention agreed with him. Palmer grudgingly accepted his role as the Vice Presidential candidate.”

Anonymous Democratic source, as quoted in Alexander the Great: Biography of an American President (1942)

“. . . The whole thing came to a head on August 5th. The Spartacists had taken control over the Kingdom of Bavaria, and forced the king to abdicate in favor of a Soviet Republic. The Berlin government was in disarray and many feared that if something didn’t happen soon, the Spartacists would spread their revolutionary government to the rest of the country. But on that day, Wilhelm Groener, third in command of the army and hero of the eastern front, led an army of mutineers into Berlin. Von Hindenburg and Ludendorff surrendered and were imprisoned. Kaiser Wilhelm II was deposed and sent into exile in the newly created Kingdom of Poland. Groener then declared Germany a republic, and called for new elections.”

From The Year of Revolutions By Benjamin Hatfield (1952)

“In mid-September, the German populace voted in their first Presidential and Parliamentary elections under the new Republic. This brought Hugo Haase’s USPD into power, with Haase himself as President. While they had earlier been associated with communists, they had moved to the right over the course of the war and came to encompass all those who opposed the war (which was a significant portion of the population by the armistice). When Haase took office on September 29th, he emphasized that he had no formal connection to the rebels in Bavaria, and would govern Germany as a moderate socialist, and not as a communist. All in all, the German election was one of the few bright spots of civility and stability in an otherwise hectic year.”

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)

“Having firmly entrenched itself as the rightful ruler of Germany, the new Republic now had a hard decision to make. Namely, what to do about the breakaway communist state of Bavaria. Some of the groups who were more sympathetic to the Communist cause (including many within the President’s own party) wanted to let the territory go if it wished to do so. Other, more hard-line elements wanted it to be annexed back into the German state, militarily if need be. This second option was immediately rejected by the new President. Finally the two sides in Parliament came to a compromise: a plebiscite. The Bavarians could vote to join the new German Republic, or to remain as a separate Soviet Republic. Believing that they would win this vote handily, the Spartacists who controlled the territory agreed.”

From The Year of Revolutions By Benjamin Hatfield (1952)

“During the Presidential election of 1920, isolationism was at a high ebb. The entire election focused on that one issue: staying out of the continuing mess in Europe. As the campaign continued it degraded into a battle of the two candidates tying to out-isolationist each other. The American people, to some extent, distrusted Underwood. He had been instrumental in crafting the terms of the peace in Europe, so as Europe sunk deeper and deeper into chaos, Underwood’s poll numbers similarly dropped. Several nations, Britain being the most vocal, were calling on the United States to come in and attempt to help stabilize things. While Underwood talked a good game in public, some Americans believed it was only a matter of time before he bowed to the pressure and began throwing American lives away over European problems.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)

“Lowden elected President; Vows to continue Clark’s isolationism.”

Headline from The New York Times November 3, 1920

“See the problem was that Underwood didn’t have any following of his own. All he was doing was riding the wave of Clark’s popularity. But that type of thing can only take you so far. At some point you have to do something, or say something, that makes Americans believe that you are up to the task of leading them. Underwood never really did. Given that reality, it kind of surprised me how close it was.”

From Presidential Elections at a Glance By Former Secretary of State Nicolas M. Butler (1940)

Results of 1920 Presidential Election
Frank Lowden / Hiram Johnson 339
Oscar W. Underwood / Alexander Mitchell Palmer 192

“The plebiscite in Bavaria went exactly as the Spartacists predicted. Bavaria voted to remain as an independent Soviet Republic. While this new state of affairs sent a shockwave rippling through Europe, Germany reacted with relative calm. President Haase gave a speech saying that the German Republic was, by definition, a federation, and if a state wished to leave, they were free to do so. Most outside observers believed that he was only allowing it because Germany didn’t have the political will to re-conquer it. Whatever the reasons, there was now a Communist nation in Central Europe and the various European powers would have to learn to live with it.”

From The Year of Revolutions By Benjamin Hatfield (1952)

“Deschanel Captured and Imprisoned!”

Headline from The Daily Telegraph November 27, 1920

“Without outside support, the French resistance was destined to collapse. When President Deschanel was captured by the Communists just ouside of Nantes, many took it as a sign that the end was near. The last of the French Republican forces surrendered soon after . . .”

“. . . While the 1921 Reforms technically took place in January of 1921, many still count them to be part of the 1920 Revolutions. I these reforms, Austria-Hungary agreed to recognize several of the breakaway states (including the two they had annexed after the Great European War) and to decentralize to allow the remaining ethnic minorities to live peacefully within the Empire. These reforms allowed the Austro-Hungarian Empire, though weakened, to stay enact.”

From The Year of Revolutions By Benjamin Hatfield (1952)

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Here's an electoral map of the 1920 election.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

This map shows the world after the Year of Revolutions. Including an independent Bavaria, and the newly independent balkan states.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

A rather shorter update this time. I hope to have the next one up by the end of the week.

Chapter 6: The Eye of the Storm

“It would not be inaccurate to call the 1920s the eye of the storm for Europe. It was one of the few periods of relative calm that graced the continent in between savage brawls. The decade gave the great powers time to recuperate from the upheavals of war and revolution. This is not to say the decade lacked action; only that this action was much more gradual and less noticable.”

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)

“Italy came a bit late to the year of revolutions, but in many ways this was to their advantage. Rather than being caught up in the violent revolutionary fervor of the year before, Italy enjoyed a gradual transition. In fact, some modern historians have taken to removing the R and simply referring to this period as the Italian Evolution.”

From The Rise of the SRWE By Manfred Aufswieler (1964)

“The situation in the newly formed Baltic nations was an interesting one. Following the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany and Autria-Hungary had created four kingdoms out of the land they had gained. They named these three kingdoms Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, and Poland. Regency Councils had been allowed to elect monarchs for these realms, but it was only with the understanding that they would be client states of Germany (and to a lesser extent Austria-Hungary). However, following the revolution in Germany and the reforms in Austria-Hungary, these nations found themselves in the odd position of being puppets without puppetmasters.”

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)

“Surrounded by Soviet Communists on one side and by German Republicans on the other, the Baltic Kings needed to band together or else suffer the consequences. While the risk of foreign invasion was quite low for the moment (The German and Soviet governments were still trying to consolidate their hold on their own countries, and were not in a position to invade anything.), this would not always be so. The regional hegemons would soon return to prominence and, new ideas or not, wish to expand. Additionally, the risk of internal revolution was quite high. This would be especially true if the countries were flooded with immigrants from their neighbors, with their new ideologies. So it was with the purpose of preserving their own power that the four kings met in Warsaw and formed the Baltic Alliance.”

From Baltic Overlords By Donald Norton (1954)

“It was in July of 1921 that the Italian Revolution began. It really didn’t seem like much of a revolution in all actuality. To the people of Italy it was simply another election. But this election was the one that brought Benito Mussolini and the Italian Socialist Party to power, the party that would change the face of Italy, and eventually of Europe, forever.”

From The Rise of the SRWE By Manfred Aufswieler (1964)

“As Europe began to dig its way out of the economic troubles it had found itself in, America’s woes were just beginning. The warning signs had been there for most of the year, but no one really sat up and took notice of the nation’s problems until the November Crash. President Lowden had the traditional lassiez-faire attitude towards the recession, and favored allowing the markets to work themselves out.”

From National Depression: The Economic and Psychological Trauma of the 20s By Nelson Scott

“In May 1922, Vladimir Lenin suffered a stroke. This left him slightly disabled, but he still had a firm grip on the reins of political power. However in December of 1922, he suffered a second stroke. This one effectively took him out of the political world of the Soviet Union. While he was still technically the Chairman of the Council, he could no longer actively take part in the day to day affairs of the nation that he’d helped create. This inactivity was initially meant to be temporary. But as the day grew into weeks and then months, the Bolsheviks had a very real decision to make: Who would replace their great revolutionary leader?”

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)

Next: The Great Reforms and the Treaty of Marseille

[Mr Stereo1]

Excellent Stuff!

[Historico]

This is another one of these sleeper TL's that I missed earlier in the year. I definatley like what you've got established in this No Wilson timeline TSLFD. Although there is not that much info on Lowden online, I assume that he would be a Harding/Coolidge like Conservative. But with the European Economies being in such disruption will America benefit from their turmoil are also suffer? I think it would be pretty intersting to see a Rocky 20's rather than a simmilar Roaring 20's...Keep this Timeline comming

[MRig]

It's back! I'm happy.

[TNF]

Nice updates. So far, it looks as if both parties are clinging to conservatism in the United States, so I'm actually rather surprised the Progressives died out as a party as they did (though I suppose that could be attributed for their lack of a strong leader, though). Will a rocky twenties push the nation towards an earlier New Deal period, perchance?

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

I will be continuing this, but (as you've probably figured out) I can't update very regularly. I'll try to get something up tomorrow.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Edit: I'm not sure why the font size is so messed up. It looks fine when I type it up, but when I post it, it turns randomly makes certain things really small. Sorry.

Edit 2: Okay I think I fixed it now.


Chapter 7: The Great Renewal

“After taking power in the elections of 1921, Benito Mussolini’s Italian Socialist Party began implementing its controversial reforms. Mussolini tried to model his government off of the Socialist regime that had taken hold in the Soviet Union. However, he did not move so fast as to alienate the Italian mainstream and cause a counter-revolution. As a skilled politician, Mussolini always seemed to have a feel for exactly how fast he could move without angering the populace. . .”

“. . . Mussolini’s cautious attitude was the antithesis of the new Communist France. Having just completed a hard won victory over the Republicans, Frossard had the political capital to pretty much whatever he wanted. This included seizing the property of large businesses, outlawing all non-Socialist parties, and strengthening ties with the Soviet Union, Italy, and Bavaria.”

From The Rise of the SRWE By Manfred Aufswieler (1964)


“Over the course of 1923, President Lowden’s popularity plummeted. Only halfway through his term, and he was already being blamed for economic difficulties that he probably couldn’t have prevented anyway. He had campaigned on isolationism, and in all honesty probably hadn’t given much thought to economic matters. Alexander Mitchell Palmer, who already considered himself to be the presumptive Democratic nominee, constantly agitated for increased government intervention in the economy. In January 1924, Lowden finally relented.”

From National Depression: The Economic and Psychological Trauma of the 20s By Nelson Scott (1974)


“When President Lowden succumbed to the popular pressure and signed the Economic Reconstruction and Relief Act, it actually had a deleterious effect. The Democrats felt that this was too little too late to fix anything. His own party felt that even this compromise was too much of interference in the free market. Nearly everyone saw him as being rather spineless after giving in to the demands of Palmer’s Democrats.”

From Alexander the Great: Biography of an American President (1942)


“By mid-1923, two main candidates had emerged as potential successors to Lenin: Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin. There was very little philosophical difference between the two by this time. Stalin’s theories of ‘Socialism in One Country’ had died a quiet death in the aftermath of revolutions in France and Bavaria. Nevertheless, Trotsky used Stalin’s old arguments against him to show that Stalin lacked ideological purity. Lenin’s deathbed endorsement of Trotsky was the last nail in the coffin of Stalin’s candidacy. So on July 29, 1923, scarcely a week after Lenin’s death, Trotsky was elected as the Chairman of the People’s Council.”

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)


“In 1924, the Democratic National Convention was merely a formality. Alexander Mitchell Palmer had nearly beaten an incumbent President four years earlier, and since that time, had become the undisputed leader of the Democratic Party. As his running mate, he chose Tennessee Congressman Cordell Hull.”

From Alexander the Great: Biography of an American President (1942)


“While the Democratic ticket in 1924 had a distinctly internationalist feel, they did not emphasize this during the campaign. Mitchell’s campaign instead focused on economic issues and his “Great Renewal” programs. Realistically, the Democrats probably could have ran anyone and still beaten the now terribly unpopular President Lowden.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)


“Feeling pressure from the growing Communist movements in Europe, the United Kingdom and Germany felt that they needed to do something to maintain the balance of power. So in September of 1924, with the Treaty of Amsterdam, they formed the Grand Entente. This alliance initially included only the United Kingdom (and the other dominion states), Germany, and the Netherlands. However, by midway through 1925, this alliance would expand to include Japan. Ironically, a short five years after the end of the First Great European War, the stage was already being set for the next one.”

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)


“The Presidential election of 1924 was, as expected, a landslide. Alexander Mitchell Palmer’s ‘Great Renewal’ was about to begin.”

From Alexander the Great: Biography of an American President (1942)


Results of 1924 Presidential Election
Alexander Mitchell Palmer / Cordell Hull 457
Frank Lowden / Hiram Johnson 74

[TNF]

Sweet. An earlier New Deal in the form of a 'Great Renewal'.

[Rocky Racoon]

BUMP

I was rummaging through the board as I normally do and found this gem. How I love timelines that result in the presence, or in this case absence of a particular American that causes chaos to ensue throughout the free world! Not only that but the American electorate embracing progressivism prior to March 1933. Anywho, I shall be following this wonderfully created piece. Shame there hasn't been an update since the 13th though....

[yourworstnightmare]

Eh, America not intervening in WW1 is ASB, unless you can completely butterfly away German submarine wardare.

[TNF]

Eh, America not intervening in WW1 is ASB, unless you can completely butterfly away German submarine wardare.

Not really. The Lusitania was heading into German infested waters. Wilson just need an excuse for the U.S. to enter WWI and the Lusitania was a convenient.

American entry into WWI is by no means inevitable.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

I'm almost done with the next chapter. It will be up by the end of the day (tomorrow at latest).

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Here's the next part. I hope to start updating this more regularly since school is starting up again.

Chapter 8: Communist Expansion

“Alexander Mitchell Palmer’s inauguration in 1925 began a new era in American politics. Within six months of taking office, Palmer passed nearly as much legislation as had been passed in Lowden’s entire term. The Great Renewal was underway. Though it would be a long arduous process, America had taken its first steps toward recovery.”

From Alexander the Great: Biography of an American President (1942)


“Whether or not the Great Renewal was effective or not is still being debated by politicians and economists alike, and I am choosing not to discuss them in a book dedicated mainly to foreign policy. However, there is one thing that can be said with certainty: these reforms were extremely popular. Realistically, the American people were simply happy to see someone doing something, anything, to try to alleviate their sufferings. By the end of 1925, Palmer’s approval ratings were at an all-time high.”

From Prominent Spectators: The History of the United States from 1912-1940 By David Norberg (2008)


“Leon Trotsky was a very busy man in the late 1920s. He, along with his western allies, fomented Communist revolutions throughout Europe, and supported the already existing movements. From 1925 to 1927, Revolutions took place in Romania, Belgium, and Sweden (although many believe the last may have gone Communist without Soviet intervention anyway). Eventually, Germany and Britain recognized that they must begin supporting the Republics and Constitutional Monarchies which were being overthrown. These efforts proved to be largely successful, as Communist revolutions were put down in Czechoslovakia and Portugal in 1928 and 1929 respectively.”

From Battle for Europe’s Soul By Phillip Natchez (1981)


“For the Baltic nations, the 1920’s were an interesting time to say the least. They could see the tensions rising throughout Europe, yet they themselves played very little part in these events. The USSR was wise enough not to interfere with nations that Germany had expressed such a strong interest in protecting, and Germany’s policy was simply to stop nations from becoming Communist at all costs. The Baltic Alliance feared Republican Revolutions nearly as much as they feared Communist ones, so they felt pressed on ever side. They saw that war between Germany and Russia was coming, but they stood staunchly in the way.”

From Baltic Overlords By Donald Norton (1954)


“By 1928, Austria-Hungary had fallen quite a ways from their previous status as a Great Power. While they were still a force to be reckoned with in the Balkans, they had decentralized to such a point that the central government now had very little control over the outlying provinces. Because of this, they played very little role in the events leading up to the Second Great European War.”

From Absolute Chaos: The Unfortunate Tale of 20th Century Europe By Mortimer Barnes (2005)


“Needless to say, Alexander Mitchell Palmer won re-election in 1928. Although the economic Depression continued, Palmer had given the American people hope, and they felt as though a recovery was just around the corner. The Republicans put up only token resistance in the form of former Massachusetts governor Calvin Coolidge, who lost in a landslide even greater than 1924.”

From Alexander the Great: Biography of an American President (1942)


Results of 1928 Presidential Election (see map below)
Alexander Mitchell Palmer / Cordell Hull 503
Calvin Coolidge / Charles Curtis 28


“Late in 1928, negotiations began in Marseilles between Italy, France, and Belgium. These negotiations concerned the establishment of an international organization of Western Communist states, which would eventually move towards integrating into one larger nation. In June of 1929, Ludovic Frossard, Benito Mussolini, and Camille Huysmans announced the creation of the Organization of Western European Socialist States. This was the beginning of what would later become the SRWE.”

From The Rise of the SRWE By Manfred Aufswieler (1964)

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Also, here is a map of governments that I made. Red are Socialist Republics, Green are Democratic Republics, Blue are Constitutional Monarchies, and Purple are Absolute Monarchies.

[Sean Mulligan]

Stalin made the Socialism in One Country Slogan in 1924 otl after the revolutions in Europe failed. He wouldn't have made them in your tl.

[rast]

OTL Bavaria was a rural country, where the peasants already owned the land.
Thus, the Bavarian Soviet Republic was in fact the Munich Soviet Republic, whose power didn't extend further north than Dachau (10 km). - It had no sound basis in the Bavarian population - other than the separatistic reflex (Damn, this sh.. was inflicted on us by the Prussians, better to start our own business).
There might be a separate Bavaria ITTL, but rather a conservative one.

[Fabilius]

Very nice work.

Somehow I think it will be difficult for SRWE to unite different communist nations.

One thing I wonder about: The socialist states still have colonies... What´s going on in them? Are they still exploited or are some socialist policies going on over there?

[sprite]

Very interesting. Also, I enjoy this format.

[TheSevenLeggedFallyDowner]

Thanks for all of the comments guys.

Stalin made the Socialism in One Country Slogan in 1924 otl after the revolutions in Europe failed. He wouldn't have made them in your tl.

True, he didn't make it public until later, but I presume that it was still his opinion before that, which is something that Trotsky and the other Communist leadership would have known and used against him.

OTL Bavaria was a rural country, where the peasants already owned the land.
Thus, the Bavarian Soviet Republic was in fact the Munich Soviet Republic, whose power didn't extend further north than Dachau (10 km). - It had no sound basis in the Bavarian population - other than the separatistic reflex (Damn, this sh.. was inflicted on us by the Prussians, better to start our own business).
There might be a separate Bavaria ITTL, but rather a conservative one.

Well, I figured that by this point, the Bavarian populace would have been itching for rebellion, and the Socialists simply provided them with an oppurtunity. Realistically you are right, the Bavarian Soviet Republic would be more conservative than the other Socialist states. I'm thinking like a Communist in name only thing kind of like China is right now. They are still allied with the other Communist states, and the leadership is still largely leftist, but they recognize that they can't go too far without alienating the population.

Very nice work.

Somehow I think it will be difficult for SRWE to unite different communist nations.

One thing I wonder about: The socialist states still have colonies... What´s going on in them? Are they still exploited or are some socialist policies going on over there?

Thank you.

Yes, I recognize that there will be dificulties, but I have plans for it.

Hmmm, I actually hadn't thought about the colonies yet. I'll do some research and probably cover it in the next chapter.

Very interesting. Also, I enjoy this format.

Yeah, I chose this format because at the time I started it I was really into statichaos's World of Laughter, World of Tears, so I imitated the format.

[yourworstnightmare]

Not really. The Lusitania was heading into German infested waters. Wilson just need an excuse for the U.S. to enter WWI and the Lusitania was a convenient.

American entry into WWI is by no means inevitable.

No, Lusitania was not the reason. The declaration of unlimited submarine warfare in 1917 and the sudden realization that American ships were sunk without warning would have driven any administration to war.

[DuQuense]

I saw on your 1920 that Russia still held Finland, What happened to the Independence movement.

Sorry I don't can't see a Commie Sweden.

?What happened to Roosevelt?, in OTL 1920 [pre Polio] he was the VP Candidate.
These efforts proved to be largely successful, as Communist revolutions were put down in Czechoslovakia and Portugal in 1928 and 1929 respectively.”
Excuse Me - but I thought Czechoslovakia was a Wilson invention after AH broke up.

[TNF]

Really great updates. I get the feeling that TTL's WWII analogue is going to be similar to Red Alert in that the Soviet Union is likely to provoke a war thanks to Trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution' and exporting of Communism. It'll be interesting to see how the United States responds, though I get the idea that Palmer is going to keep us out of the mess in Europe as his predeccessors did.

[farwalker]

Stubbled upon this in a link, and I have to say good job! This is another really interesting TL about a Socialist Revolution (the other one was where McKinley survived assassination). Keep up the good work...

[Analytical Engine]

Personally, I think France would get the bits marked as Neukamerun-Ost and Neukamerun-Sud in this map, since they were given to Germany in exchange for German recognition of France's control over Morocco.

http://unimaps.com/cameroon1914/mainmap.gif

[Historico]

Awesome update, I assume that America's lack of inovlvement in WWI has hampered an earlier depression ITTL? Or does it have to do more with the global effects of such social upheavel in Euope in the early 20's? Also I wonder if Palmer will break the Washington Tradition and run for a third term? Keep it comming:D

********

No Wilson TL: Presidents of the United States

26. Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt (R-NY): September 14th 1901-March 4th 1909
27. William H. Taft (R-OH): March 4th 1909-March 4th 1913
28. James B. “Champ” Clark (D-MO): March 4th 1913-September 5th 1919*
29. Oscar W. Underwood (D-AL): September 5th 1919-March 4th 1921
30. Frank O. Lowden (R-IL): March 4th 1921-March 4th 1925
31. Alexander M. Palmer (D-PA): March 4th 1925-???

Notes.

28. Died in office

[Whanztastic]

I am curious about the smaller international issues that happened during the Wilson administration, such as his numerous interventions in Latin America such as the occupation of Haiti and Pershing's invasion of Mexico (among many others), the expeditions into the Soviet Union, or Wilson's refusal to listen to Éamon de Valera or Ho Chi Minh.

It seems likely for none of these to happen, creating a very different 20th century beyond continental Europe.

[Korporal Nooij]

I love this TL! I'm hoping that you're still continuing on it, since it has been a few months since the last update! Anyways, consider me subscribed! ;)

[Mikestone8]

If a reactionary Democrat is nominated then Theodore Roosevelt may very well win the presidential election.


Were there any real reactionaries among the Democratic hopefuls of 1912? With the exception of Underwood (whose chances of nomination were pretty remote - pre 1976, Southerners had to be content with the Vice-Presidential spot at best) I thought they all claimed to be Progressives of some description.

Certainly I can't think of anyone as conservative as the 1904 nominee, Alton Parker - and even he got 37.6% - only four percentage points less than Wilson would get in 1912 - which would have been more than enough to elect him in a three-eway race. Was any of the 1912 brigae likely to do worse than that? I can't think of one.

[Mikestone8]

Eh, America not intervening in WW1 is ASB, unless you can completely butterfly away German submarine wardare.

Not necessarily. See a couple of NYT articles giving Bryan's position on the matter. He at least would have swallowed the u-boat campaign (albeit under protest) rather than go to war over it.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9906E7D8173AE433A25756C0A9649C946696D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=940CE4DD1538EE32A25757C0A9649C946696D6CF

I'm less sure about Clark or Marshall, but Clark opposed the draft even after war was declared, and Marshall reportedly said in 1914 that, were he president, he would never take America to war unless she were actually invaded. Either or both might have changed their minds, but it is not self-evident.

[Mikestone8]

Not really. The Lusitania was heading into German infested waters. Wilson just need an excuse for the U.S. to enter WWI and the Lusitania was a convenient.

American entry into WWI is by no means inevitable.


The Lusitania had nothing to do with it. That sinking was ancient history by 1917.The decisive factors were the Zimmermann Telegram, and, immediately afterward, the sinkings of several American (not Britiah) merchantmen by u-boats.

Had Wilson wanted an excuse to go to war, there had already been plenty. By April 1917 the problem was finding a way not to. Had he been as uncompromisingly non-interventionist as Bryan, he could probably have blocked a declaration of war, but he was not, and neither were the majorities in both houses of Congress.

[Mikestone8]

Results of 1916 Presidential Election


Would there even be a 1916 election? See the two NYT article below.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9505E4DD133BE633A25751C0A9649C946296D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9506E0D9133EE733A25750C1A9669D94 6596D6CF

Would Clark have blocked the single-term Amendment as Wilson did? It was, after all, a part of the Democratic platform, on which he had just been elected. If he lets it go to the HoR (where it is certain to pass) and the states ratify it (also near certain, given the combined support of Democrats and anti-TR Republicans) he is in office for six years, and the next election won't be till 1918.


BTW, how on earth does TR manage to carry New York in 1912? OTL, he came last, with only 390,000 votes out of about 1.5 million total - 26%. All Clark has to do is match Alton Parker's 42% of 1904, and he carries the state easily. Indeed, he could fall well short of that and still do so, since Taft, the runner-up, got only 30%. How exactIy does a relatively minor change like nominating Clark instead of Wilson (one unexciting candidate rather than another) make anything like that kind of difference?

[Timmy811]

I think that Champ Clark would win the nomination seeing as how he was the favorite going into the convention IOTL. The only reason Wilson won the nomination was that William Jennings Bryan convinced the left-wing of the party to unite against Clark, and eventually threw his support behind Wilson. In order for someone else to take the nomination from Clark, he would need to emerge as the only viable alternative to Clark, and thus unite the left-wing as Wilson did IOTL. Judson Harmon would be a good candidate for this, or maybe Oscar Underwood (though he was far more likely as a VP candidate than a Presidential one). Perhaps Bryan himself could run again, he was only 52. Fourth time's a charm maybe?

Either way, I think a Democrat is gets elected. The Republican vote was split between Roosevelt and Taft. I could see it be a little closer with a weaker Democratic candidate, but I can't see either of them winning the election. Unless we somehow butterfly away the animosity between the two, although that would be a huge stretch (possibly even ASB) considering a POD only six years earlier. If I write the TL (which I'm leaning towards doing), there's no way I'm using butterflies to justify a huge plot twist like that.

Why not have Bryan refuse to accept Clark and bolt the convention for his own run and have a 4 way free for all?

EDIT: Didn't realize how old this tread was when I wrote this.

[Mikestone8]

Why not have Bryan refuse to accept Clark and bolt the convention for his own run and have a 4 way free for all?

Not a chance. Bryan is one of the most partisan Democrats who ever lived. He wouldn't even think of bolting. He even campaigned for Parker in 1904.

EDIT: Didn't realize how old this tread was when I wrote this.

Me neither.

[lounge60]

Progressive party politics can avoid Great Depression?

[Mikestone8]

Progressive party politics can avoid Great Depression?


Why?

By 1929 the second TR administration (even if it happened) is as ancient history as the Wilson Administration OTL - and since it won't control Congress, will have done far less than Wilson's did, and certainly not have been able to pass anything remotely controversial. So how would it be likely to avert the Depression?

[Andrew Hudson]

The only really interesting timeline that you can develop is if it puts Teddy Roosevlt in the White House in 1912 and America enters the war earlier. Presumably Bryan runs in 1912 and puts of lot of middle of the road voters off.

[Bosemacher]

The only really interesting timeline that you can develop is if it puts Teddy Roosevlt in the White House in 1912 and America enters the war earlier. Presumably Bryan runs in 1912 and puts of lot of middle of the road voters off.

Champ Clark as president would make for a more interesting timeline. Clark was against the Federal Reserve Act as implemented. A truly neutral USA could be an honest broker for peace. Without US taxpayer backed loan guarantees the Entente can run out of money to fund the war. A lessening of the massive industrial expansion caused by war production will have social as well as economic implications for the USA.

[Mikestone8]

Champ Clark as president would make for a more interesting timeline. Clark was against the Federal Reserve Act as implemented. A truly neutral USA could be an honest broker for peace. Without US taxpayer backed loan guarantees the Entente can run out of money to fund the war. A lessening of the massive industrial expansion caused by war production will have social as well as economic implications for the USA.


Could you clarify what you mean by "taxpayer backed loan guarantees"?

All loans raised prior to April 1917 were raised by the House of Morgan and secured on British or other Allied property in North America - the US government didn't raise them or guarantee them. The first unsecured loan was only made in May/June 1917 - well after the declaration of war - and would almost certainly never have been made had the US remained neutral - as it probably would under Clark.

[Mikestone8]

Champ Clark as president would make for a more interesting timeline. Clark was against the Federal Reserve Act as implemented. A truly neutral USA could be an honest broker for peace.


There could also have been some other effects. See the NYT article of January 4, 1911, at

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9802E6DC1331E233A25757C0A9679C94 6096D6CF

Clark advocated increasing the President's term to six years, while making him ineligible for re-election. He would also have

a) increased the terms of US Representatives from two years to three.

b) moved election day to the last Monday in August and inauguration day to the first Monday in October.

An amendment providing for the single six-year-term passed the Senate in Feb 1913, but was never voted on in the House due to the intervention of President-elect Wilson, who disapproved. Presumably Clark would have let it through. Whether his other proposals would ever have seen the light of day is less clear.