So let’s imagine that Theodore Roosevelt narrowly defeats William Howard Taft for the 1912 Republican Nomination, and goes on to defeat Woodrow Wilson in the General Election. With Roosevelt back in the Oval Office, how would World War One be affected? Could it be avoided altogether, if Roosevelt offered to be a mediator and helped to settle an agreement? Would the war still begin as it did IOTL, and would Roosevelt be aching to join the fight, and bring the United States into the war much earlier than IOTL? Would the war end earlier? And how would the Treaty of Versailles change? Would he have sympathized with Britain and France’s desires to severely punish Germany? Would there still be a League of Nations? What would the Post-war world look like? And what would America’s domestic scene look like?
If Teddy Roosevelt won in 1912, how would this affect America’s participation in WW1?
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
thorr97
Banned
At the very least a TR presidency instead of Wilson's would make for a much less racist US military and Federal government. It was Wilson who instituted "Jim Crow" style laws which destroyed the progress of black Americans within the Fed and the military. Thus, even if WWI still went off along the OTL form and if the US got involved in it, American "colored" troops wouldn't be such a novelty in its fighting.
He wrote a letter to Ruyard Kipling claiming that he would have joined the war on the side of Allies from the start.
JAG88
Banned
People love to talk AFTER the fact...
...but the issue is, what does he do when the British start stopping, boarding and confiscating US ships and cargo directed to neutral nations.
JAG88
Banned
So, he was telling brit propagandist what he wanted to hear in order to smear a political enemy... unheard of!!!
And how would he have gone to war exactly to make such a comment even feasible and not just hot air? I mean, after years of propaganda the Usians rushed the recruitment offices to the tune of... 70.000, so they had to resort to conscription and selling passports since the war was horribly unpopular forcing Wilson to jail anyone talking against the war... but he would have joined from the start!
Good to know.
He may have wanted to join the war earlier but it highly doubtful he would have been able to get past Congress, it took repeated German diplomatic blunders to git congress to join the war in the first place, blunders which might not evan happen as the germans respected rosavelt a hell of a lot more then willson.
He would have been way better than Woodrow “The Birth of a Nation” Wilson. Perhaps getting involved in the Great War in 1915-1916, the war might have ended earlier, letting the Provisional Government in Russia establish itself. Perhaps we could see some American Mandates? But let’s be serious, he would have saved us all with his glorious mustache by banishing Woodrow Wilson to hell with his beautiful cheeks. Killed all the Krauts with his big stick and white fleet. And then proceed to manifest destiny the entirety of the Americas.
Last edited:
Ian_W
Banned
If the USA is no longer neutral and is providing ammunition on credit but no soldiers, then the Entente can deal with that.
Is that letter online anywhere? I have the relevant volume of his Letters, but it does not appear there.
He did write to Kipling on Nov 4, but says nothing explicit about going to war, though he may have had this in mind when he wrote "If I should advocate all that I myself believe, I would do no good among our people, because they would not follow me."
We're getting into ASB country here. Prior to Feb 1917, when American shipping came under direct attack, any war resolution sent to Congress would (assuming they deigned to put it to a vote at all) have been lucky to get double figures. In reality, of course, there would have been no such message, as TR would be far too smart to invite a humiliating rebuff, and probable forfeiture of any hope of re-election.
Come Feb 1917, TR would not have messed around with "armed neutrality" so war could have come a couple of months earlier, but that's about the limit.
Ian_W
Banned
Some bright spark potential Assistant Secretary of the Navy might suggest guaranteeing a return for the US for the loan of certain war equipment via leases of certain colonies ...
He could suggest anything he liked, but Congress wouldn't have been interested. They would have feared involvement in the war, and would be reluctant to acquire territory inhabited by non-whites. The Philipinos were burden enough, thank you.
Maybe if they were offered a chunk of Canada, but that would never have happened.
I assumed he’d use the sinking of the Lusitania as a cassus belli.
TR might have got the US involved earlier and better prepared than Wilson did. A stronger and more decisive US would have led to an earlier Allied victory.
Post war he wouldn't be as silly and idealistic as Wilson, who pissed off just about everyone, friends and foes alike, at home and abroad. WWII would probably be butterflied away altogether, and WWI probably not as devastating as IOTL. The 20th century ITTL would be unrecognisable from ours'.
Post war he wouldn't be as silly and idealistic as Wilson, who pissed off just about everyone, friends and foes alike, at home and abroad. WWII would probably be butterflied away altogether, and WWI probably not as devastating as IOTL. The 20th century ITTL would be unrecognisable from ours'.
Ever heard of Brownsville? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville_affair In fact, Brownsville is one reason some prominent African American writers were willing to take a chance on Wilson in 1912: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...te-woodrow-wilson.402116/page-3#post-13474845
Segregation in the armed forces long preceded Wilson.
Deleted member 94680
Minor performance differences aside (different Generals being chosen, different commitments being made) this is the main difference you’d get IMHO. No Wilson means no idiotically idealistic Fourteen Points.