1901 Assassination Switch

Glen

Moderator
March 6th, 1901 there was an attempted assassination of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany in Bremen.

September 6th, 1901 US President William McKinley was shot by an anarchist at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, NY and would die several days later.

What if the results of these two assassination attempts were reversed, with Wilhelm II dying and McKinley surviving?

What would the effects on the twentieth century be?

Some of this found its way into the XXth Century, but it has such interesting possibilities even apart from that timeline....
 
Obviously, no Roosevelt Presidenicy. Come 1904 prehaps a Democrat is elected, but we'd definately see someone besides Taft nominated for the Republicians, and I think Roosevelt would have given up on the postion. It would depend on what McKinley does during his second term. I also think the democrats may chose someone else but that years candidetn for the democrats has said to been one of the better ones.

Prehaps we do have the OTL Democratic Candident of Alton Brooks Parker take the Presidenticy...

I disagree vehemently: as early as mid-1901 (that's right, before the attempt on McKinley's life), there was a boom for TR in 1904. Also, while I don't have a link, there was a political cartoon (I believe it appeared in the humor publication Judge )showing TR in full Rough Rider gear on horseback, with the legend "For Vice President" on the brim of his hat. Seated on the pommel of the saddle, so small that you'd barely notice him, was McKinley in civilian garb, carrying an equally tiny pennant saying "For President": the implication was clear even in 1900 that TR was the far more charismatic figure who would not be forgotten.

No, absent McKinley's assassination, TR would have taken the White House in 1904, and would have brought in progressivism from the start. Then it's debatable whether he would have turned to Taft in 1912, or perhaps decided that while he might have had personal differences with Charles Evans Hughes, he could work with him, and indicated Hughes as his nominal successor.
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
I disagree vehemently: as early as mid-1901 (that's right, before the attempt on McKinley's life), there was a boom for TR in 1904. Also, while I don't have a link, there was a political cartoon (I believe it appeared in the humor publication Judge )showing TR in full Rough Rider gear on horseback, with the legend "For Vice President" on the brim of his hat. Seated on the pommel of the saddle, so small that you'd barely notice him, was McKinley in civilian garb, carrying an equally tiny pennant saying "For President": the implication was clear even in 1900 that TR was the far more charismatic figure who would not be forgotten.

Interesting take, and one I'd like to believe.

Of course, another interpretation of that cartoon might be that TR was a showboat compared to the more quiet McKinley.

No, absent McKinley's assassination, TR would have taken the White House in 1904, and would have brought in progressivism from the start. Then it's debatable whether he would have turned to Taft in 1912, or perhaps decided that while he might have had personal differences with Charles Evans Hughes, he could work with him, and indicated Hughes as his nominal successor.

He probably still would have supported Taft, given his feelings of the time. It was only when Taft was out of TR's shadow that he fell in with the more conservative branch of the party and came afoul of TR.
 
He probably still would have supported Taft, given his feelings of the time. It was only when Taft was out of TR's shadow that he fell in with the more conservative branch of the party and came afoul of TR.

There's also the question of Taft's availability. There were vacancies on the Supreme Court after Holmes' appointment (which TR wanted originally to go to Taft) to which Taft could have been named, thereby taking him out of running for the presidency. Also, Taft was not terribly inclined to be president: TR and his wife pushed it; he would have far and away preferred the Supreme Court. Now, assuming Taft goes the judiciary route, that paves the way for a burying of the hatchet between Roosevelt and Hughes, perhaps brokered by Henry Cabot Lodge and another New Yorker, Elihu Root. (Roosevelt might have been able to persuade Root himself to follow him, but that would have taken some doing: he tried it in OTL but Root dissuaded him, and Taft was available, so...)


Either way, someone TR can get along with (more or less) is likely in the White House in 1913, and Woodrow Wilson may be not much more than a footnote to history if you're not an alumnus of Princeton.
 

Glen

Moderator
There's also the question of Taft's availability. There were vacancies on the Supreme Court after Holmes' appointment (which TR wanted originally to go to Taft) to which Taft could have been named, thereby taking him out of running for the presidency. Also, Taft was not terribly inclined to be president: TR and his wife pushed it; he would have far and away preferred the Supreme Court.

Ah, now that is a much better point! Taft would have much preferred to go directly to the Supreme Court.

Now, assuming Taft goes the judiciary route, that paves the way for a burying of the hatchet between Roosevelt and Hughes, perhaps brokered by Henry Cabot Lodge and another New Yorker, Elihu Root. (Roosevelt might have been able to persuade Root himself to follow him, but that would have taken some doing: he tried it in OTL but Root dissuaded him, and Taft was available, so...)

Interesting, didn't know that he tried to get Root (who would have made sense).

Don't know if Hughes would happen, though.

Hmmm...have to think about who else would follow TR by 1912.

Either way, someone TR can get along with (more or less) is likely in the White House in 1913,

Oh yeah, no doubt about that. He'll be the one hand-picking the next president. But who....?

and Woodrow Wilson may be not much more than a footnote to history if you're not an alumnus of Princeton.

Yep.
 
Ah, now that is a much better point! Taft would have much preferred to go directly to the Supreme Court.



Interesting, didn't know that he tried to get Root (who would have made sense).

Don't know if Hughes would happen, though.

Hmmm...have to think about who else would follow TR by 1912.



Oh yeah, no doubt about that. He'll be the one hand-picking the next president. But who....?



Yep.


Herbert S Hadley, Republican governor of Missouri, was considered as a compromise candidate in 1912 between Taft and Roosevelt. If Taft is on the court, I could see a Hadly-Hughes ticket in 1912 (Wilson would've, uh, been slaughtered; Hadley would have actually had a chance at some upper-south states as a governor). Here's his wikki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_S._Hadley

Which is less than helpful. You could also go here:
http://images.kclibrary.org/localhistory/media.cfm?mediaID=208184

The ill health is a problem, but the article doesn't say if it was chronic, and if not it could be butterflied.
 

Glen

Moderator
Herbert S Hadley, Republican governor of Missouri, was considered as a compromise candidate in 1912 between Taft and Roosevelt. If Taft is on the court, I could see a Hadly-Hughes ticket in 1912 (Wilson would've, uh, been slaughtered; Hadley would have actually had a chance at some upper-south states as a governor). Here's his wikki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_S._Hadley

Which is less than helpful. You could also go here:
http://images.kclibrary.org/localhistory/media.cfm?mediaID=208184

The ill health is a problem, but the article doesn't say if it was chronic, and if not it could be butterflied.


Interesting tidbit, but I doubt it. The candidate would have to be in really good with TR, as he is likely to dominate the party at the end of his second term, just as he did OTL.
 
Some more general notes.

This timeline looks cool. Really eally cool, and should be written. Couple of points:
1. WWI was certainly not, at the time, regarded as inevitable, and there's a lot of debate among IR scholars as to whether it was (when I say a lot, I really do mean it: we read like six or eight pieces on this question in my grad intro to international affairs class). What you'd really want to look at with the new Kaiser would be his views regarding the military. The average age of the German general staff was well into the sixties, and they were shaped--like most of their European counterparts--by the Franko-Prussian war. It's worth asking whether a younger Kaiser might have had different ideas about the "cult of the offensie". Also, did he have better personal relations with the British and Russians? A strong argument could be made that Germany got into war so precipitously (one might say recklessly) because they drastically misread British intentions (they thought GB might actually stay neutral or even join the Central Powers from what I recall).
2. I doubt progressivism ends as a political force. In fact, the delay could even be good for them, as it would prevent the Taft interregnum. However, there would be a nasty fight over the nomination in 1904. The Joe Cannon faction would be unlikely to roll over without a fight, and might have demanded concessions from Roosevelt. He could even have been forced to take Cannon or someone like him as a VP. By 1912, you'll need a conciliatory candidate to keep the GOP together (see my earlier post on Hadley).
3. Assuming that (A) there is a war and (B) the US gets involved, they're going to be pushing for a very different post-war settlement. There will likely not be anything like the 14 points, and, at the very least, a scaled back league of nations. You could see some sort of American mandate in the Middle East (if the Ottomans enter the war and lose it). I would hope that Roosevelt, who was at least vaguely involved with the efforts to stop Belgium's congo genocide and had been on safari several times to Africa, would keep Belgium from getting Rwanda-Burundi.

Over all, I think there are some really interesting possibilities here. It might be fun to see what two or three different TLs with this POD look like.
 
Last edited:

chronos

Banned
It also really messes up British foreign policy. No pro-British president to assist with a close relation with Britain and no-one to assist the Japanese in the R-J 1904-05 war. Worst still no even more pro-British president after 1912.
This is why the McKinley assassination is thought a little convenient.

The is also no WII to bash and WIII is likely to be less pro-British and appoint pro-British Chancellors like Bethmann-Holweg.

Interesting one - with no TR to mediate a peace between R and J, the peace negotiations collapse and R fights on and forces a defeat on Japan.
This would really change the timeline as Russia would continue facing east.
 
It also really messes up British foreign policy. No pro-British president to assist with a close relation with Britain and no-one to assist the Japanese in the R-J 1904-05 war. Worst still no even more pro-British president after 1912.
This is why the McKinley assassination is thought a little convenient.

The is also no WII to bash and WIII is likely to be less pro-British and appoint pro-British Chancellors like Bethmann-Holweg.

Interesting one - with no TR to mediate a peace between R and J, the peace negotiations collapse and R fights on and forces a defeat on Japan.
This would really change the timeline as Russia would continue facing east.


I actually agree with Glenn that TR probably wins the 1904 election walking away, particularly with a solid conservative runningmate, like maybe Henry Cabbot Lodge? So, assume he gets two terms. The question of pro-British or pro-German is...interesting. If it's Hadley, I have no idea, particularly as Missouri has a rather large German population which, in 1912, probably still uses German fairly intensely. Now, if it's Hughes or Lodge, you could see more unambiguously pro-British sentiment.

For an interesting take on how Hughes would have differed from Wilson, go here:

www.alternatehistory.com/shwi/Mr%20Hughes%20Goes%20to%20War.txt
Of course, it would be a different war, but the construction he puts on Hughes' probable actions seems sensible.
 

Glen

Moderator
This timeline looks cool. Really eally cool, and should be written. Couple of points:
1. WWI was certainly not, at the time, regarded as inevitable, and there's a lot of debate among IR scholars as to whether it was (when I say a lot, I really do mean it: we read like six or eight pieces on this question in my grad intro to international affairs class).

Agreed. Wilhelm III is likely to be more cautious than his impetuous father. It is possible that all out war is prevented...at least at that time. Its hard to imagine getting through the 20th century without at least one World War.

2. I doubt progressivism ends as a political force. In fact, the delay could even be good for them, as it would prevent the Taft interregnum. However, there would be a nasty fight over the nomination in 1904. The Joe Cannon faction would be unlikely to roll over without a fight, and might have demanded concessions from Roosevelt. He could even have been forced to take Cannon or someone like him as a VP.

Possibly. I agree that Progressivism, at least of the Roosevelt stripe, may benefit.

By 1912, you'll need a conciliatory candidate to keep the GOP together (see my earlier post on Hadley).

Disagree here. TR dominated the nomination process OTL, and I see no reason to believe he won't again ITTL. In 1916 all bets are off, however.

3. Assuming that (A) there is a war and (B) the US gets involved, they're going to be pushing for a very different post-war settlement. There will likely not be anything like the 14 points,

If there's a war, I agree.

and, at the very least, a scaled back league of nations. You could see some sort of American mandate in the Middle East (if the Ottomans enter the war and lose it).

Doubt there'd be an American mandate. The political forces that would block such a move are likely to still be present in the timeline.

I would hope that Roosevelt, who was at least vaguely involved with the efforts to stop Belgium's congo genocide and had been on safari several times to Africa, would keep Belgium from getting Rwanda-Burundi.

Depends on who is president by the end of the war, but yeah.

Over all, I think there are some really interesting possibilities here. It might be fun to see what two or three different TLs with this POD look like.

True.

It also really messes up British foreign policy. No pro-British president to assist with a close relation with Britain

Not necessarily.

and no-one to assist the Japanese in the R-J 1904-05 war.

Actually, TR would likely be able to jump into the negotiations feet first in '05. A delay in peace at best. Still going to see TR get a peace prize, I think.

Worst still no even more pro-British president after 1912.

Who knows?

This is why the McKinley assassination is thought a little convenient.

Ooookaaaay.....

The is also no WII to bash and WIII is likely to be less pro-British

I think I know what you mean here, and of course the most important point is that he won't have as much bad press as Wilhelm II.

and appoint pro-British Chancellors like Bethmann-Holweg.

True.

Interesting one - with no TR to mediate a peace between R and J, the peace negotiations collapse and R fights on and forces a defeat on Japan.
This would really change the timeline as Russia would continue facing east.

Disagree. First, TR will make the peace. Second, continuing the war with the Russian Revolution of '05 would be disasterous for Russia I believe.

I actually agree with Glenn that TR probably wins the 1904 election walking away, particularly with a solid conservative runningmate, like maybe Henry Cabbot Lodge?

Possible, possible.

So, assume he gets two terms.

Probable.

The question of pro-British or pro-German is...interesting. If it's Hadley, I have no idea, particularly as Missouri has a rather large German population which, in 1912, probably still uses German fairly intensely. Now, if it's Hughes or Lodge, you could see more unambiguously pro-British sentiment.

For an interesting take on how Hughes would have differed from Wilson, go here:

www.alternatehistory.com/shwi/Mr%20Hughes%20Goes%20to%20War.txt
Of course, it would be a different war, but the construction he puts on Hughes' probable actions seems sensible.

Hard to say. I don't think it'll be Hadley, but don't know that it will be Hughes or Lodge, though they are both in the running.
 
Anglo-German relations and ships

Kaiser Wilhelm III might be less navy-mad. If he isn't putting as much into building a fleet, there's less friction with Britian right there. Germany needs a fleet that can control the Baltic, show the flag, and keep hostiles (like the French) away from her coast without grave risks.
Perhaps 2:1 superiority over Russia or France, whichever has a larger fleet, or a navy equal to the two of them, would suffice. Limiting the fleet in a treaty with Britian could help distance Britian and France.

With Wilhelm III being in the army, I think he might go this way. Massive effects by 1914 right there.
 

Glen

Moderator
Kaiser Wilhelm III might be less navy-mad. If he isn't putting as much into building a fleet, there's less friction with Britian right there. Germany needs a fleet that can control the Baltic, show the flag, and keep hostiles (like the French) away from her coast without grave risks.
Perhaps 2:1 superiority over Russia or France, whichever has a larger fleet, or a navy equal to the two of them, would suffice. Limiting the fleet in a treaty with Britian could help distance Britian and France.

With Wilhelm III being in the army, I think he might go this way. Massive effects by 1914 right there.

Not certain that there won't be some naval build up, but it could be handled better.
 
1912 election.

Glenn:
You're right in thinking that TR would probably dominate the nomination process in 1912. However, I'd imagine after two terms of Rooseveltian progressivism, the conservative faction in the GOP is going to be fighting pretty hard against TR. Also, his choices are limited. He seems to have had personal problems with Hughes (he supported him in 1916, but only against the hated Wilson). Lodge would be a possibility, but is probably too conservative for TR. You could see him go for a third term. Remember the two-term limit came after FDR, and Roosevelt's young enough. In fact, to play it safe, you could have four terms of Roosevelt, and possibly the two-term limit comes earlier.
I like the idea of Hadley, but he is a little young in 1912, and only a one-term governor. However, if you butterfly his health, you could have him come in as VP in Roosevelt's last term, and perhaps play Truman.
If you do have a war and if TR is president at the time, then you will see an American mandate. He was a nationalist and imperialist, and the factors which prevented US involvement were Wilsonian self-determination (not a factor) and world-weary post-war isolationism (less likely since FDR probably puts the US military in better fighting trim). There's been an essay in one of the what if books on a President Roosevelt in WWI which might be instructive.

Anyway, just some thoughts.
 
There sure would be

Not certain that there won't be some naval build up, but it could be handled better.

Of course there would be some naval build-up. Germany was a Great Power, and in those days, Great Powers had great navies...it was a requirement.

And Britain wouldn't be threatened by a moderate sized navy, especially since Germany had a legitimate need for one. The Baltic is a highway for anyone...Germany has a legitimate need for serious forces by the standards of the local fleets (Russia)

Proposal:

Britain builds Dreadnought

Germany responds with a pair of Nassau's

Britian builds Invincible, Germany builds Von der Tann. With more British battlecruisers on the ways, Goeben is laid down.

1909...Russia lays down 4 dreadnoughts, so Germany adds 3 more dreadnoughts, Helgoland class, giving her a one ship advantage over Russia, plus the battlecruisers as support.

Beyond that, Germany answers France ship for ship, adding in Derflinger and Lutzow, so when war breaks out, Germany has 4 battlecruisers, plus approximate parity with Russia and France, but their fleets can't unify for a Trafalgar type battle.
 

Glen

Moderator
Glenn:
You're right in thinking that TR would probably dominate the nomination process in 1912. However, I'd imagine after two terms of Rooseveltian progressivism, the conservative faction in the GOP is going to be fighting pretty hard against TR. Also, his choices are limited. He seems to have had personal problems with Hughes (he supported him in 1916, but only against the hated Wilson). Lodge would be a possibility, but is probably too conservative for TR. You could see him go for a third term. Remember the two-term limit came after FDR, and Roosevelt's young enough. In fact, to play it safe, you could have four terms of Roosevelt, and possibly the two-term limit comes earlier.

Two things.

First, the conservatives might want that, but they would have in OTL too, so I don't think we can assume the need for a specific compromise any more than what we saw OTL.

Second, TR was following the Washingtonian tradition, which Is why he didn't go for a third term in OTL, even though he didn't have two full terms since he replaced McKinley. I think getting royally pissed at Taft and missing office allowed him to rationalize running again since he didn't get two full terms the first time. However, here we have him getting two full terms, he will plan to not run for a third, period, and in fact I suspect it will keep him from running again in future. Of course, if he gets royally pissed again and there's no one else....

I like the idea of Hadley, but he is a little young in 1912, and only a one-term governor. However, if you butterfly his health, you could have him come in as VP in Roosevelt's last term, and perhaps play Truman.

Refer to comments above.

If you do have a war and if TR is president at the time, then you will see an American mandate. He was a nationalist and imperialist,

Nationalist, yes. Imperialist, no, at least not in the sense most people mean it.

I'm not certain that we get a war here in 1914. Probably somewhat later and over something else.

and the factors which prevented US involvement were Wilsonian self-determination (not a factor) and world-weary post-war isolationism (less likely since FDR probably puts the US military in better fighting trim). There's been an essay in one of the what if books on a President Roosevelt in WWI which might be instructive.

I suspect I've read it and disagreed with it.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

Thoughts are always good.:D
 
For Germany:

I don't know much about the German Crown Prince, but I don't see any way he can be worse than his father. My best guess would be that defer mostly to the military, and be less likely to be influenced by political operators like Bulow. Germany will still support A-H in the Balkans, against Russia if necessary, which most likely means eventual war.
The interesting question is what kind, if any, of naval expansion Germany decides to undertake without Wilhelm driving for it. I see the Crown Prince as much more of a traditional Prussian army type, not having his father's obsessions regarding a navy. Germany would most likely have better relations with Britain, perhaps enough to keep them out of a war on the side of Russia/France.

For USA:

Lots of stuff happened during TR's first term that might play out much differently with McKinley still in office, like the coal miners strike. McKinley would be inclined to use traditional methods to open the mines, rather than arbitrate between the unions and owners as TR did. In the short run, this probably works and the coal supply is resumed, but could lead to increased unrest and radicalism.
I actually don't see McKinley handling the canal issue much differently than TR, he was certainly no slouch in the imperialism department, if not as strong a true believer as his veep. This is actually one area where I see TR influencing McKinley, or members of his cabinet.
TR as VP would actually be a very interesting thing to see, if anyone had the potential to make the Vice Presidency relevant, it would be him. Foreign policy would be the logical area for him to try and exert influence and get additional publicity for a presidential run in '04 - especially if McKinley is distracted by domestic concerns like labor unrest.
If McKinley takes a very strong pro-business line, which he is likely to do, in '04 the Democrats will likely nominate Bryan instead of a conservative like Parker, which would be one hell of great presidential race.
 

Glen

Moderator
For Germany:

I don't know much about the German Crown Prince, but I don't see any way he can be worse than his father. My best guess would be that defer mostly to the military, and be less likely to be influenced by political operators like Bulow. Germany will still support A-H in the Balkans, against Russia if necessary, which most likely means eventual war.

Mostly agree.

The interesting question is what kind, if any, of naval expansion Germany decides to undertake without Wilhelm driving for it.

Some. Maybe not as aggressively, though.

I see the Crown Prince as much more of a traditional Prussian army type, not having his father's obsessions regarding a navy.

Agreed.

Germany would most likely have better relations with Britain,

Could hardly be worse.

perhaps enough to keep them out of a war on the side of Russia/France.

Long shot, but a possibility. Depends how things go down.

For USA:

Lots of stuff happened during TR's first term that might play out much differently with McKinley still in office, like the coal miners strike. McKinley would be inclined to use traditional methods to open the mines, rather than arbitrate between the unions and owners as TR did. In the short run, this probably works and the coal supply is resumed, but could lead to increased unrest and radicalism.

Maybe, but there's a chance that TR will become president in 1905, and if he does he might do something similar in another strike that comes up.

I actually don't see McKinley handling the canal issue much differently than TR,

Agree.

he was certainly no slouch in the imperialism department, if not as strong a true believer as his veep. This is actually one area where I see TR influencing McKinley, or members of his cabinet.

The canal will go about the same way, I tend to agree.

TR as VP would actually be a very interesting thing to see, if anyone had the potential to make the Vice Presidency relevant, it would be him. Foreign policy would be the logical area for him to try and exert influence and get additional publicity for a presidential run in '04 - especially if McKinley is distracted by domestic concerns like labor unrest.
If McKinley takes a very strong pro-business line, which he is likely to do, in '04 the Democrats will likely nominate Bryan instead of a conservative like Parker, which would be one hell of great presidential race.

Agreed. And Bryan likely still loses.
 
Top