Teddy Roosevelt And World War I: An Alternative History by Jeff Nilsson

Aphrodite

nick_crenshaw82 said:
I don't think a war time president was ever lose an election and once committed to the war personal pride, patriotism and propaganda will most likely see the US through the war. Plus Roosevelt was an Imperialist himself and could be the start of the American Empire.
Click to expand...
World War I was extremely unpopular from the beginning. Even after the Zimmerman telegram, the Lusitania, Black Tom, the Russian revolution which is very important and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, 50 Congressmen and 6 Senators voted against it. There are a lot of abstention s as well.

Of the men eligible for the draft, 13 percent didn't register. Of those who were drafted, 12 percent either didn't report or deserted.

Any government that tried to get America involved before the 1916 elections is likely to be turned out
 

Mikestone8

nick_crenshaw82 said:
I don't think a war time president was ever lose an election
Click to expand...

LBJ did in 1968. He was so unpopular that he couldn't even seek *renomination*

Of the other cases that I recall, the first (Madison 1812) took place when the opposition party was all but extinct, while in the other two (Lincoln 1864, FDR 1944) there was far more at stake for the US even than in 1917, let alone 1915/16

There were no Presidential elections during the Mexican War or WW1, but in both cases the President's party was defeated in the midterms.
 

cjc

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet but the german leadership had far more respect for TR then they had for wilson. Which means they are far less likely to mess around whith a noted strong man they the "perceived" werk wilson. Which makes it less likely not more that America even inters the war in the first place.
 

Mikestone8

cjc said:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet but the german leadership had far more respect for TR then they had for wilson. Which means they are far less likely to mess around whith a noted strong man they the "perceived" werk wilson. Which makes it less likely not more that America even inters the war in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what *I've* been saying all along.

We have TR's own statement that he would have sent a very strong note after the sinking of the Gulflight, and another (threatening seizure of German ships in US ports) when that "warning" advert appeared about the Lusitania. So it is entirely possible that the latter's sinking is butterflied away - and possibly Black Tom as well .
 

Mikestone8

marktaha said:
While TR is one of my favourite Presidents I shudder for anti - war activists and opponents under his administration !
Click to expand...
Though he'd have his work cut out to be worse than Wilson.

Google "Thomas Woodrow Frankenstein" for my take on the latter's record. Even Harding mst have come as a blessed relief.
 

Mikestone8

McPherson said:
Interesting.

Only thing is that Wilson believed in the deeds he did. He was that evil. And for once the Republicans were the "good guys".
Click to expand...
Wilson was the type of person who is (in his own estimation) *always* in the right. Thus in late 1917 he could lock people up for saying much the same things that he himself had been saying in late 1916.

It reminds me of a line from an sf novel I read in my youth "If the Great Leader said something today which contradicted something he had said yesterday, the important thing was that yesterday was dead. If one forgot that yesterday was dead, then one was liable to join yesterday."

I feel, however that you are being far too kind to the Republicans, many of whom were just as bad. Frex, in Feb 1917 Henry Cabot Lodge wrote to TR expressing concern that there might be no "sufficiently flagrant case of the destruction of an American ship and American lives to compel war." IOW, he didn't just *expect* the Germans to attack American shipping; he actually *wanted* them to do so. He *wanted* innocent American sailors to be drowned in order to further his political ends. You surely can't get much more evil than that. If Wilson was a hypocrite, Lodge was a *monster*. Perhaps they deserved each other.
 
Last edited:
McPherson

McPherson

Mikestone8 said:
Wilson was the type of person who is (i his own estimation) *always* in the right. Thus in late 1917 he could lock people up for saying much the same things that he himself had been saying in late 1916.

It reminds me of a line from an sf novel I read in my youth "If the Great Leader said something today which contradicted something he had said yesterday, the important thing was that yesterday was dead. If one forgot that yesterday was dead, then one was liable to join yesterday."

I feel, however that you are being far too kind to the Republicans, many of whom were just as bad. Frex, in Feb 1917 Henry Cabot Lodge wrote to TR expressing concern that there might be no "sufficiently flagrant case of the destruction of an American ship and American lives to compel war." IOW, he didn't just *expect* the Germans to attack American shipping; he actually *wanted* them to do so. He *wanted* innocent American sailors to be drowned in order to further his political ends. You surely can't get much more evil than that. If Wilson was a hypocrite, Lodge was a *monster*. Perhaps they deserved each other.
Click to expand...
1917 Republicans were not "nice", but then think about their "Democrat" opponents, especially the "Unreconstructed Confederates" who formed the actual Wilsonian wing of that party. These are the cross burners, lynchers, and founders of the Klukkers and the myth of "states' rights", and the "Lost Cause" lies of the American interpretation of history at the time.
=========================================================================
Lodge... knew that America had to fight. He was a cold blooded politician who was "Bismarckian". REALPOLITIK is a lot different from the "romantic racism" (proto-fascist statist bullshit) practiced by Wilson.

BTW, does one suggest that FDR, who was trying to prod the Germans into committing piracy in the North Atlantic in the same exact way that Lodge merely hoped the Kaiser's idiot sailors would act so that the Americans could get at the Kaiser, was like the policy FDR followed, so that he, FDR, could get at Hitler , was the same? Was Lodge a "monster" for hoping for an event? I mean FDR pursued a "policy of provocation". I mean by this question a difference: Lodge just wanted the German navy to behave the way, we now know the German navy wanted to behave. When Hitler reined them in in 1939-1941, FDR ordered his navy to push at the U-boaters deliberately. That is a lot of difference between "hope" the bear comes out of the cave to maul your buddy, so he, the bear, can be shot, and sending your buddy into the cave to poke the bear with a stick to wake the bear up so you can shoot the bear.
 

Mikestone8

McPherson said:
Lodge... knew that America had to fight. He was a cold blooded politician who was "Bismarckian". REALPOLITIK is a lot different from the "romantic racism" (proto-fascist statist bullshit) practiced by Wilson.
Click to expand...
"Had to" for what reason?

Telling your merchant ships to stay away from the war zone might be wounding to your national pride, but it didn't have to interfere with your trade. The Entente had plenty of ships of its own to collect US goods on a "cash and carry" basis. Ad since British ships were being concentrated on te North Atlantic route, that left plenty of opportunities in Pacific and S Ameri They did not envisage one. can trade for US shipping lines to take up.

Keep in mind that hardly anyone at this tiime was seriously expectng the Germans to *win*. Even the Germans themselves thought they were losing, which is why they gambled on USW and the ZT. So neither Lodge, Wilson nor anyone else had any reason to think US intervention necessary to prevent a CP victory. They did not envisage one.
 

Mikestone8

McPherson said:
Same reason any seapower would. A Mackinder combination in Eurasia would be too strong for America to resist its dictation of policies and terms.
Click to expand...
Which could only happen if Germany won the war - but in Feb/Mar 1917 virtually no-one - even in Berlin - was expecting this.
McPherson said:
Why did Great Britain fight Napoleon?
Click to expand...
Because Napoleon was overrunning the Continent and esp the Low Countries. In early 1917 Germany, to all appearances, was barely holding her own against a stronger coalition, and likely to lose even such modest conquests as she *had* made. .
 
McPherson

McPherson

Mikestone8 said:
Which could only happen if Germany won the war - but in Feb/Mar 1917 virtually no-one - even in Berlin - was expecting this.

Because Napoleon was overrunning the Continent and esp the Low Countries. In early 1917 Germany, to all appearances, was barely holding her own against a stronger coalition, and likely to lose even such modest conquests as she *had* made. .
Click to expand...
When did Lodge make his comment? Was it during the French army mutinies?
 
nick_crenshaw82

nick_crenshaw82

Moving away from whether Roosevelt could get the US to enter WWI earlier (if at all) let's move on to other matters. Would any of the following still occur ITTL:
  • May 31 - The Seventeenth Amendment is ratified
  • October 3 - Wilson signs the Underwood Tariff and the Revenue Act of 1913
  • December 23 - Wilson signs the Federal Reserve Act
And also who is the most likely to be in his cabinet?
 
McPherson

McPherson

nick_crenshaw82 said:
Moving away from whether Roosevelt could get the US to enter WWI earlier (if at all) let's move on to other matters. Would any of the following still occur ITTL:
  • May 31 - The Seventeenth Amendment is ratified
  • October 3 - Wilson signs the Underwood Tariff and the Revenue Act of 1913
  • December 23 - Wilson signs the Federal Reserve Act
And also who is the most likely to be in his cabinet?
Click to expand...
a. Probably the direct election of senators would be ratified.
b. If Wilson is S-canned, Teddy would likely not sign it. Underwood was an arrogant racist, a klukker and an unreconstructed Confederate Wilsonian. Nix on the tariff and the income tax.
c. Nope.
 
Bomster

Bomster

Banned
Coulsdon Eagle said:
Not so much the Americans having a new perspective. I think you'll find that the AEF used the same old tactics, ignoring the lessons of 3-4 years experience of their Allies, until they realised the butcher's bill was too high. The US Army came in convinced it knew how to do better and got rather a shock.

So I expect the first few months the US will suffer disproportionate casualties, probably moreso as the British & French hadn't figured it out for themselves and couldn't pass on that acquired knowledge. So not so much the Americans having a new perspective.

Mind you Jutland with a US Battle Squadron would be fun but only if, like their Army colleagues, they listened to the hard won experience of the RN, especially regarding firing practice, at which the USN was shockingly awful when they turned up.
Click to expand...
How would Americans react to such death?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top