If Charles Evans Hughes was elected President in 1916, could that affect the outcome of WW1?

Bomster

Bomster

Let’s say that during the 1916 campaign, Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes makes that visit to California Governor Hiram Johnson that he didn’t IOTL. Because of this, Johnson does not feel snubbed and supports Hughes, campaigning on his behalf. This effort flips California to Hughes in the general election, a state that was won by Woodrow Wilson by a little under 4,000 votes!

genusmap.php


Now with a Republican in office, how does the trajectory of WW1 play out? Does it continue just as it did IOTL, with Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare and Zimmerman Telegram drawing America into the conflict? Or does Germany take a more cautious stance with this new unfamiliar President, understanding that he comes from the same party as Pro-War politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt?
 
Marc

Marc

Donor
My guesstimate is that American involvement in the great European war was inevitable - if only due the the strong anglophilla among the American ruling elite at that time. Now, the aftermath could be significantly different.

(Side note, and Hughes victory would also be one for African-Americans)
 

David T

Germany is still going to go for unrestricted submarine warfare and that will still bring the US into the war. The Germans were perfectly well aware that their decision would bring the US into the war but thought that they would win before the arrival of US troops could make a difference. That would not change with the election of Hughes.
 
Bomster

Bomster

David T said:
Germany is still going to go for unrestricted submarine warfare and that will still bring the US into the war. The Germans were perfectly well aware that their decision would bring the US into the war but thought that they would win before the arrival of US troops could make a difference. That would not change with the election of Hughes.
Click to expand...
How would the War impact Hughes’ term, and would it allow for a Democrat to win in 1920?
 

David T

Bomster said:
How would Hughes handle the peace negotiations? Obviously there would be no League of Nations.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary--the idea of some sort of League was very popular, and Hughes is more likely to get the US into one because he will be less stubborn about the terms, and especially unlikely to demand the sort of open-ended commitment to defending all existing borders represented by Article X, which was the source of most of the Senate opposition in OTL.
 
Aisha Clan-Clan

Aisha Clan-Clan

Probably no prohibitions. Dems in charge 1921-29, with the GOP getting back in after the 1928 elections due to that party's structural advantage and then things default more or less to OTL but minus prohibition.
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

Bomster said:
Let’s say that during the 1916 campaign, Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes makes that visit to California Governor Hiram Johnson that he didn’t IOTL. Because of this, Johnson does not feel snubbed and supports Hughes, campaigning on his behalf. This effort flips California to Hughes in the general election, a state that was won by Woodrow Wilson by a little under 4,000 votes!

genusmap.php


Now with a Republican in office, how does the trajectory of WW1 play out? Does it continue just as it did IOTL, with Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare and Zimmerman Telegram drawing America into the conflict? Or does Germany take a more cautious stance with this new unfamiliar President, understanding that he comes from the same party as Pro-War politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt?
Click to expand...

I might point you to one of my favorite alt-history timelines from the old Usenet days, "Mr. Hughes Goes to War."

A bit of a Austro-German Wank - or Habsburg Wank? - but the author had some pinache in his writing, and I enjoy that kind of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top