Evangelicals wanting the Holy Lands for other reason than they being the Holy Lands.
Teddy Roosevelt And World War I: An Alternative History by Jeff Nilsson
- Thread starter nick_crenshaw82
- Start date
Would it matter what Teddy wanted to do? The Senate (even one controlled by his own party) wud surely throw it out.
Deleted member 94680
Well I didn’t know how much of that attitude came from Wilson’s... leadership and how much was from the Senate itself. Or how much Teddy’s leadership and personality would be able to sway them
,
Wilson's attitude didn't help, but imho it only reinforced an existing mood. In 1919 most Americans were keen to put the war behind them and get back to normal life. OTL, Harding caught their mood perfectly, and I can't see why having a different personality in the White House should alter it an any major way.
The notion of sending Doughboys to keep order in the Middle East would float like a lead balloon.
Deleted member 94680
Fair enough.
But would a Roosevelt successor have a different platform?
Not even for the Christian Zionist aspect referred to above?
Not enough to matter.
After WW1 Americans just didn't want to know. If you want that to change you have to keep the US out of WW1 altogether.
Deleted member 94680
Or change how America entered WWI and the “national attitude” towards the War? Public opinion can be shaped by government policy as much as government policy is shaped by public opinion.
Only if public opionin is in a mood to change. It can't be done to order. What could TR's propaganda man do that Creel didn't?
If anything, given that TR's attitude had consistently been more bellicose than Wilson's, people would start having doubts about a war launchedby him even *faster* than they did abt one launnched by Wilson. The isolationist backlash would be *stronger* than OTL, not weaker.
Last edited:
Deleted member 94680
Quite probably. But on the other hand, was not part of the dissatisfaction with Wilson’s policies the apparent dishonesty of them? Wouldn't Roosevelt’s openness about intervention be deemed more acceptable. It would be easier for a PotUS like TR to couch intervention in terms of “honour” “America’s moral duty” or simply framing it as the US taking her “rightful place” amongst the Great Powers?
Also done forget that Roosevelt was part of the Preparedness Movement OTL and most likely would be ITTL. He was also a very forceful personality who would campaign to first build up US armed forces for our own best interests especially in light of Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare. This along with the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and news of the Black Tom plot (whether it's successful or not) I feel are strong reasons to get Americans to support early involvement in WWI.
Preparedness Movement - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Black Tom explosion - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
But America's honour would have been satified the day that Germany surrendered her u-boats, and Americans were no longer being "murdered" on the high seas. Why would such considerations create any desire for further entanglement in Europe, let alone the Middle East?
Certainly TR could come up with alternative reasons for *going* to war, but tthese would be academic once the war was over.
Why should campaigning for preparedness achieve anything? All it would do is create a strong suspicion that TR intended to manipulate America into the war, or else inntesify an already *existing* supicion of this. And any such belief would leave preparedness dead in the water, and guarantee TR's defeat in 1916. .
As for Lusitania and Black Tom, if TR is POTUS do either of these things ever happen? He is on record as saying that he would have sent a fierce note to Berllin about the earlier sinking of the Gulflight, and would have responded to the "warning" advert abt the Lusitania by threatening, should anything happen to her, to seize German ships stranded in US ports. The Germans will take TR's notes at least as seriously as they took Wilson's (probably more) so these incidents are more than likely to be butterflied away.
Deleted member 94680
Because the course of the longer War (for America, compared to OTL) has generated a larger “deficit” for America’s expenditure of “blood and treasure” therefore “demanding” a greater return?
If it was purely about U-boats and the high seas, wouldn’t America’s war effort be limited to a naval campaign?
What "longer war"? There is no likelihood of USW being resumbed before Feb 1917, so that is the earliest that the US can be drawn in.
Even if, by some ASB freak, the US war effort *did* last significantly longer than OTL, this would only serve to increase the people's sacrifices and general weariness, so that the desire to wash their hands of Europe and its troubles would be *greater* than OTL, not less
[QUOTE="Stenz, post: 21366045, member: 946] If it was purely about U-boats and the high seas, wouldn’t America’s war effort be limited to a naval campaign? [/quote]
But Wilson fantasised about playing the leading role at a peace conference and remaking the world in his image. A naval campaign alone would ot have gained him the prestige he needed for that
Deleted member 94680
The whole thread is about a Roosevelt USA entering the War earlier than OTL?
In that case the entire premise is ASB. Surely it's a bit like having a thread that begins with a successful Sealion.
In *any* case, though, it doesn't invalidate my main point, that a longer war, involving greater sacrifices and privations, would just make the postwar rebound all the more drastic. The postwar America would be *more* isolationist than OTL, not less.
Last edited:
Deleted member 94680
How is it ASB?
That's applying OTL attitudes and situations to an ATL America. The Roosevelt America would've entered the War in a different scenario, conducted themselves in a different manner and likely contributed to the Peace in a different way. That would produce a different domestic reaction. That is IMHO, obviously.
I quite agree there would be a different domestic reaction. The longer war and greater privations would make the rebound into isolation a good deal stronger and more prolonged than OTL's.
The realisation that a warmongering POTUS had rushed them into a war in which they had next to nothing at stake (unless they happened to be arms merchants) and that nothing was likely to come out of the peace conference which would be worih the loss of a single American life (a pretty safe bet whatever the precise details of the Trearty happened to be) would make them even more bitter aand angry toward TR than they were OTL toward Wilson, if that be possible.
And to say "Well, we got a colony in the Holy Land" would be likely to provoke an extremely uncivil response.