More Divided US enters WW1 earlier

WI a United States President in 1915 was more pro ally than Wilson in OTL. (I do not know the candidates for this other than Teddy Roosevelt but I suspect there would be others

The Lusitania is hit but not sunk.

(It seems that in OTL the fact that the liner was sunk was an appalling piece of bad luck involving coal dust and air being near the torpedo explosion at a particular concentration as to make them explosive.)

If the US declared war but there was a LARGE minority (maybe a majority) in public opinion is against the WAR.


Would a divided US still be able to decisively shift the balance to cause and earlier allied victory?

Might this prevent the Bolshevik coup (alias Great October Revolution) in Russia?

Could opposition to the war create quite radical shifts in American politics?

Alternatively might the adminsitration manage to be even more oppressive in this ATL 1915 than Wilson was in OTL 1917-9
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
In order to do this you have 3 presidential possibilities
- TR, far less likely to dally, and a really intriguing possibility on a Progressive Party platform
- Taft, a more lawyerly approach perhaps, I find it hard to tell
- Another Democrat wins the primary instead of Wilson; I really don't know who was standing against him or thinking of doing so

OTL the USA was very divided which is why events like the Lusitania did NOT lead to war

In order to get your requirements, you need a compliant Congress as it is Congress which declares war based on the president's recommendation. OTL 1917 the weight of events and of the gathering public opinion had become so heavy that war was inevitable once Wilson asked for it. To get it 2 years earlier you need a Congress that wil DEFY public opinion

Maybe TR elected on a Progressive platform would do this - senators and Reps would be either Progressive elected with him, or Republican splitting off from Taft et al on his victory, opposed by the Dems and the rump Republicans

Grey Wolf

Derek Jackson said:
WI a United States President in 1915 was more pro ally than Wilson in OTL. (I do not know the candidates for this other than Teddy Roosevelt but I suspect there would be others

The Lusitania is hit but not sunk.

(It seems that in OTL the fact that the liner was sunk was an appalling piece of bad luck involving coal dust and air being near the torpedo explosion at a particular concentration as to make them explosive.)

If the US declared war but there was a LARGE minority (maybe a majority) in public opinion is against the WAR.


Would a divided US still be able to decisively shift the balance to cause and earlier allied victory?

Might this prevent the Bolshevik coup (alias Great October Revolution) in Russia?

Could opposition to the war create quite radical shifts in American politics?

Alternatively might the adminsitration manage to be even more oppressive in this ATL 1915 than Wilson was in OTL 1917-9
 
TR might be able to get away with it. Some consequences if he succeeds:

1] America is sorely divided. The AntiWar faction is going to be much more vocal and they are not going to be silenced by Sedition laws as they were with Wilson.

2] Allied victory in 1916. There is a possibility that Germany sues for peace in a less precipitous fashion.

3] Roosevelt's wair aims should not be conflated with Wilson's. I think he viewed Germany as being out of line. He is not making the the world safe for democracy, waging wars to end all wars (he might shudder at that thought) and is not going to be fantasizing about a League of Nations. He's punishing Germany for misbehaving.

4] Possible (I won't go so far as to say probable) consequence of this is that the Dual Monarchy might survive--reduced of some Slavic lands (and Tyrol) but it won't be sacrficied on the altar of an antimonarchist screed.

5] Wilhelm goes but TR might try to see Hohenzollern monarchy preserved but with reduced powers.

Postwar I look to a lot of "was it worth it" soul searching in the US. Could well see James Cox as President.

Tom
 
Top