DBWI: President Woodrow Wilson?

I know it might sound a bit strange to ask, but what if Woodrow Wilson was elected President in either 1912 or 1916? He ran twice and both times he lost to Theodore Roosevelt. TR was of course insanely popular, but their is a way to get him elected.

What most people don't know is that; before the election, Incumbant President Taft was very close to seeking a second term. It was only after he and TR had a in depth discussion that he decided to opt-out of another term. This is what lead to TR getting the nomination and the Presidency again. In fact TR later said that even if Taft wouldn't have agreed to step aside, he still would have run for President, even if it had to be for a thrid party.

so, in the senario I purpose, Taft gets the nomination again, and TR makes his own third party, and thus splits the republican vote, allowing Woodrow Wilson to be elected President.

Now, how would a Wilson Presidency have turned out? What would America's role in World War One be like under Wilson? What would Wilson's domestic policy be?
 
Third parties in America aren't viable, don't be ridiculous. TR would never try to split the Republican vote; even if he did, there's no way he'd get more votes than, say, Debs. Of course, a 1912 Taft Presidency would be a lot more tenuous and Wilson could probably beat the weaker candidate. Perhaps TR would even lobby behind Wilson? I mean, they were ideologically pretty close, and TR had that kind of personality.

Anyway, IIRC, Wilson was an isolationist, so you might see no United States entry in the Great War. A Europe under German thumb would be rather ghastly, IMHO.

How would things wind up in Russia? The political stability there was very shaky right up until the end, with the Tsar's abdication and the Petrograd Soviet and all that rot. Without the United States, wouldn't they do even worse? Perhaps a radical government comes to power in the immediate post-war order, like what happened in Germany?
 
Third parties in America aren't viable, don't be ridiculous. TR would never try to split the Republican vote; even if he did, there's no way he'd get more votes than, say, Debs. Of course, a 1912 Taft Presidency would be a lot more tenuous and Wilson could probably beat the weaker candidate. Perhaps TR would even lobby behind Wilson? I mean, they were ideologically pretty close, and TR had that kind of personality.

Anyway, IIRC, Wilson was an isolationist, so you might see no United States entry in the Great War. A Europe under German thumb would be rather ghastly, IMHO.

How would things wind up in Russia? The political stability there was very shaky right up until the end, with the Tsar's abdication and the Petrograd Soviet and all that rot. Without the United States, wouldn't they do even worse? Perhaps a radical government comes to power in the immediate post-war order, like what happened in Germany?

Everyone in the US was "isolationist" at that time. I'm sure that if Wilson felt the US needed to get involved keenly enough, then he would intervene in the war. It might happen later, though, which could have some of the effects you mentioned. Wasn't France pretty close to breaking by the time the doughboys started getting there? If the war is entered late, it's possible that you might see Americans fighting in Russia! :eek:

That could prevent the Russian revolution altogether, since I suspect that the tsar's government would prefer to send American than Russian troops to the firing line, and might make excuses to keep their soldiers on internal security. Not to mention the large amounts of American supplies that would probably be rapidly entering Russia after the armies at that time.
 
How would the election of Wilson in '12 or '16 effect the civil rights movement? He was apparently something of a racist; I doubt he'd take steps towards desegregating the armed forces like TR did.
 
We dodged a huge bullet not electing Wilson. he was quite a racist, and god knows what he would have done to the USA's race relations. He would have set us back 50 years!
 
We dodged a huge bullet not electing Wilson. he was quite a racist, and god knows what he would have done to the USA's race relations. He would have set us back 50 years!

So, what the US would not have elected a black president yet, rather than having elected John Calvin King* (JCK) in 1972? Probably the tradeoff to having a proponent of "Jim Crow" elected in 1912 or 1916 would be that the US doesn't wind up being a quasi-socialist mess in the 1980s or 1990s.

Of course, having such a man as leader of a great power gives hope and legitimacy to men such as Goering, Veorward (sp?), Douglas**, and Beria***...

OOC *An analogue to Martin Luther King, named for a different Protestant leader, of course.
**Tommy Douglas, yes, that Tommy Douglas...
***Not communist, of course. (No USSR) But no less vile.
 
Now, I'm not saying I support Wilson - I've heard the racist rumors just like everyone else, and they say he was rather headstrong and probably wouldn't have worked well with Congress. What I find interesting, though, is that he apparently had a PhD: he would have been the US's first president with that level of education; do you think he would have done anything to advance tertiary education in the nation in general?
 
Of course, having such a man as leader of a great power gives hope and legitimacy to men such as Goering, Veorward (sp?), Douglas**, and Beria***...
Come on, Goering? As is, that sort of "new-wave right-wing" fascist junk had no chance in Germany post-war, and that was with the disintegration of German Social Democracy. A situation where Germany seems on a collision course with victory would see a stronger, more united SPD. Why would a CP victory give him anything?

I mean, fascism might (might) have its appeal if Germany still lost somehow, but how could that possibly happen? France and Russia were both hanging by threads at many points in the war, and that's with the United States helping out.
Everyone in the US was "isolationist" at that time. I'm sure that if Wilson felt the US needed to get involved keenly enough, then he would intervene in the war. It might happen later, though, which could have some of the effects you mentioned.
Why would Wilson "feel the need" to intervene? Speaking in purely economic and strategic terms, avoiding entering the war while trading with both sides is the ideal situation. The major powers would also realize that screwing this up for the United States would risk the entry of another Great Power on their opponents' side, and the war would still be pretty close.
 
You're forgetting TR's big banking reform bill in 1913. Without his leadership in that affair we would almost certainly have had more panics going into the 20's and 30's. He set the ground rules for the stable financial sector that has allowed the American economy to grow so steadily for the past century. Do you really think Wilson would have stood up to Wall Street the way TR did, even after the assassination attempt? Without that bill, finance would probably still be centered in New York and cities like San Fransisco, Minneapolis, and Kansas City would be much less important.

Without TR at Versailles in 1917 the Germans would almost certainly have been more harshly punished. A Germany ruined by even more severe reparations payments would have left the Entente in firm control of everything from Western Europe to the Pacific. Without a strong Germany there to balance things and keep them occupied what would have stopped them from dividing the Western Hemisphere amongst themselves? And remember OTL there was a lot of talk about eventually giving the Ottoman lands independence, if that happened there'd be no way we'd have our hands on Mesopotamian oil today.
 
Without TR at Versailles in 1917 the Germans would almost certainly have been more harshly punished. A Germany ruined by even more severe reparations payments would have left the Entente in firm control of everything from Western Europe to the Pacific. Without a strong Germany there to balance things and keep them occupied what would have stopped them from dividing the Western Hemisphere amongst themselves?
Assuming they still lost, which I think is pretty crazy to assume. Even then, it's not like OTL's Versailles was that awesome; what more could Germany honestly lose beyond Alsace-Lorraine and its colonies? The Rhineland?

I can certainly imagine a different peace treaty seeing the Ottoman Empire being carved up rather than reforming, though.
 
How would the election of Wilson in '12 or '16 effect the civil rights movement? He was apparently something of a racist; I doubt he'd take steps towards desegregating the armed forces like TR did.

Which is interesting modern interpretation since if one looks at Roosevelt's writings, and his glorification of the Aryan Race, they would see that both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were cut from the same cloth regarding non-white races.
 
Come on, Goering? As is, that sort of "new-wave right-wing" fascist junk had no chance in Germany post-war, and that was with the disintegration of German Social Democracy. A situation where Germany seems on a collision course with victory would see a stronger, more united SPD. Why would a CP victory give him anything?

I mean, fascism might (might) have its appeal if Germany still lost somehow, but how could that possibly happen? France and Russia were both hanging by threads at many points in the war, and that's with the United States helping out.

Goering was just one that I threw out there. the German Right would more likely have come to power under his old boss, Baron Manfred Von Richthofen. Douglas is the one I see as most likely to succeed, followed by Veorward. Douglas was premier of Saskatchewan for 15 years (1944-1959), and nearly lead the far-right NDP* to power in Ottawa in 1968. Veorward missed taking power in South Africa but a literal hair's breadth...

A good BP** would be perhaps for a delayed or mothwinged (1913) Great Irish Rebellion. If it is delayed by ten years or doesn't happen at all, the British can bring the full force of their power into the Great War from the beginning, rather than in 1916. Most of the "British" soldiers who fought in the war during the first year or so were from the Dominions, along with several divisions from India. Troops from Great Britain were busy in Ireland until the fighting there ended in mid-1916. Having the full force of the British Empire fall on Germany from the beginning could allow the Entente to prevail even with delayed US involvement or even with US neutrality. Of course, this would mean that the Empire would be grievously wounded by the war, perhaps suffering casualties on par with what the US Army took ITRW***


OOC *NDP is not the left leaning New Democratic Party, but a similarly named quasi-Nazi "Nationalist Democratic Party...
**BP= Breakaway Point, TTL's 'POD'.
***ITRW= In The Real World, TTL's 'OTL'.
 
Which is interesting modern interpretation since if one looks at Roosevelt's writings, and his glorification of the Aryan Race, they would see that both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were cut from the same cloth regarding non-white races.

Roosevelt certainly thought that the White race was the best, but he certainly never support the KKK or segregation like Wilson.

Now, what's this about the Aryans? Aren't they an ethnic group in Persia and India?
 
A good BP** would be perhaps for a delayed or mothwinged (1913) Great Irish Rebellion. If it is delayed by ten years or doesn't happen at all, the British can bring the full force of their power into the Great War from the beginning, rather than in 1916. Most of the "British" soldiers who fought in the war during the first year or so were from the Dominions, along with several divisions from India. Troops from Great Britain were busy in Ireland until the fighting there ended in mid-1916.
An interesting consequence of this would be a less powerful decolonization movement in British territories. Wasn't one of the big drivers for it all the demobilized soldiers from the Indian Federation who had learned "proper" western fighting, alongside a "we fought your war, now let us go" sentiment amongst the locals?
 
An interesting consequence of this would be a less powerful decolonization movement in British territories. Wasn't one of the big drivers for it all the demobilized soldiers from the Indian Federation who had learned "proper" western fighting, alongside a "we fought your war, now let us go" sentiment amongst the locals?

Maybe the other way around, given that they form the core of the "Five Dominions'" armies in the early thirties... A large number of senior officers in the British armies, all of whom had commanded or served alongside the soldiers from India, lobbied in favour of home rule for India. This lead to the creation of the "Five Dominions". Mothwing that, and you could get a nastier campaign in India that leads to full independence and possibly to communism/fascism in India.

The Five Dominions ultimately served as an example for how decolonization should go, rather than the French or Belgian example that lead to unparallelled bloodshed in Africa and south-east Asia... Think of a 'Kongoish' Rhodesia for a possibility of what might have been.
 
Top