I figure this is a hard challenge. Maybe impossible, maybe not, but surely interesting.
This might be possible if the U.S. endures so much casualties in trench warfare in WWI that a pro-peace candidate is elected to the U.S. Presidency in 1916 and makes a separate peace with Germany afterwards.I figure this is a hard challenge. Maybe impossible, maybe not, but surely interesting.
This might be possible if the U.S. endures so much casualties in trench warfare in WWI that a pro-peace candidate is elected to the U.S. Presidency in 1916 and makes a separate peace with Germany afterwards.
So, Taft declines to run in 1912 and TR wins the GOP nomination and the U.S. Presidency in that year?I dont think you can get that many troops to the front by then. It took a year for American combat troops to arrive in quantity. Assume the US enters after the Lusitania in 1915 and the first significant combat isnt until spring 1916. That's a pretty tight turnaround. And it would require significant ambivalence among the population at the time of declaration. I think you would need a different President, perhaps Teddy for this to occur. Teddy in Pres, gets us in, Wilson (or someone similar) beats him in 16.
This might be possible if the U.S. endures so much casualties in trench warfare in WWI that a pro-peace candidate is elected to the U.S. Presidency in 1916 and makes a separate peace with Germany afterwards.
So the USA and Russian Provisional Government demand peace now by 1917? And they make a separate peace leaving the British, French and Italians in a lurch?
I'm thinking U.S. withdrawal from the war could legitimize Russian withdrawal also.
In turn, this might require not only a TR victory in 1912, but also a pro-war decision in this 1912 Imperial German War Council:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Imperial_War_Council_of_8_December_1912
I mean to launch a war as soon as possible--as Moltke apparently wanted.What do you mean by this, a decision to launch war immediately in the winter of 1912, or for the spring of 1913?