People literally think U.S Election is rigged and stolen by the Party they disagree with. It's not hard to believe that Rightwing people will say 1917 Election is stolen and rigged by "Jewish Socialists Leech"
TR isn't Donald Trump. Belief in honest competition was one of the core elements of TR's whole being. He would never claim he was cheated in a competition he lost fair and square. It's going to be hard for right wing populists to get any traction for the idea that the election was stolen if even their candidate is insisting it was a fair election and they need to grow up.
Plus I said U.S Myth has supported because the Military was pretty much call off to defeating the CSA once and for all by the Socialist.
That alone would make it more believable to people to think that they will stop in the back than in Germany as well as Military isn't Defeated by Rebs enough to make the Myth more believable.
Again though how is it a stab in the back when it's a democratically elected president doing exactly what he promised to do in his election campaign.
Entente has the Royal Navy who after they defeated German navy, would destroyed any American ship to Oblivion in the Atlantic ocean.
That's extremely unlikely.
Even if we assume the Royal Navy is substantially larger than the US Atlantic Fleet (which is a reasonable assumption), it is going to be very difficult for the Royal Navy to bring the Atlantic Fleet to battle. It can shelter in its naval bases which the Royal Navy doesn't dare attack directly. (There's a reason the Royal Navy never tried to attack the main German fleet bases directly during World War 1 IOTL despite the Grand Navy being much larger than the High Seas Fleet and that's because taking your dreadnoughts close to the enemy shoreline where they are vulnerable to mines, submarines, and torpedo boats is an extremely bad idea. The US fleet bases in TL-191 will certainly be at least as well protected as the German Navy's bases were in OTL WW1, so the British will have no ability to realistically attack the US fleet in its own bases.)
And since the US Navy has the shelter of its own bases, it becomes all but impossible for the Royal Navy to destroy the Atlantic Fleet. It can't just linger off the US coast indefinitely. This isn't the 17th century. Dreadnoughts can't get by on wind power. They require oil or coal. And since underway replenishment was in its infancy at the time of World War 1, that means the British are going to need access to a massive fleet base in North American waters if they want to maintain the Grand Fleet off the US coast for any length of time.
It is doubtful such a base exist. Even if we assume the British built a base in Halifax big enough to hold the entire Grand Fleet, Halifax has almost certainly been overrun by US forces by 1916 and thus that base is not available to the British. And where else would the British be able to hold such a massive fleet. It is doubtful the Confederates have a naval base anywhere near that big. Norfolk is capable of being an enormous fleet base, but it is not believable that the Confederates would spend the money necessary to build an enormous fleet base at Norfolk when they don't have an enormous fleet and do have so many other pressing needs for their defense budget.
And of course even if we do just magic in a fleet base capable of supporting the entire Grand Fleet, that still leaves the Royal Navy pretty much at square one. They can't effectively blockade the US coast because they can't risk dispersing their fleet (which would enable the Americans to defeat it in detail), and they can't attack the American fleet because it will just stay in its protected bases. All the Royal Navy can really do in this situation is keep the US Navy from interfering with the Anglo-Confederate trade. That's certainly not nothing but it's not exactly sweeping US ships from the Atlantic.
This is not even mentioned that Mexico and other Hispanic countries will likely have sanctions and not importing food to the Americans cause of the Royal Navy.
Asia allies would also joined the Entente sanctioned to America in the Pacific front as well to affect the food supply of US.
Which will make U.S has Food shortage during the FGW (Tho not as Extreme like in Germany in WW1)
Whatca talking about Willis? The US at this time is a MASSIVE food producer. It was not dependent on any foreign source for its food supplies. Quite the contrary in fact. as It was a major food exporter at that time.
Look at page 18, in this book "The International Grain Trade" for some insight on just how much surplus food the US was capable of producing in the early 20th century. The chart on that page only relates to the amount of British grain imports by country, but it shows that the United States was the largest single source of grain imports to Britain in the 1910-1914 time period with it exporting an average of over a million tons of grain to Britain per year in that time period.
Grain is one of the world's most important staple commodities and one of the most hotly contested. With ever present malnutrition and starvation in many regions contrasting with huge agricultural surpluses in richer areas, it comes as no surprise that grain features highly in both human welfare...
books.google.com
And of course Britain was not the only country, the US exported food supplies to. (Nor was grain the only food item the US exported.)
Thus even if we assume that the Entente can somehow convince the rest of the world to stop trading with the US (which in itself is unlikely), that is not going to put the US under any food pressure at all. At its absolute worst the US would lose access to some luxury food items like coffee and tropical fruits that can't physically be grown in the United States, but while people might be grouchy about not getting their morning coffee, no one in the US is going to be starving or even hungry.
Wouldn't Theodore got assassinated by either Entente or Dissent to add the Chaos of Postwar 1917?
The Entente would never try to assassinate TR. Doing so would be unthinkable under the diplomatic rules of the early 20th century. Assassinating heads of state (or even former heads of state) was viewed as something that anarchists and terrorists did not great powers.
TR getting assassinated by a disgruntled veteran is possible, but I fail to see how that would destabilize the US. If anything such an act would discredit the far right movement and make it easier for President Debs to crack down on any extremist groups.
With all due respect Mr bguy, Even Roosevelt didn't follow the US Constitution when he literally trying to have a third term term and alright with Military rule in Utah and Canada along it "keeping the peace"
Trying to have a third term isn't a violation of the Constitution. Even IOTL the 22nd Amendment (which limits presidents to 2 terms) wasn't ratified until 1951 (i.e. long after the time period we are talking about), and there is no indication in the novels that such an amendment had ever been enacted in the TL-191 US. TR might have been going against an established custom by seeking a third term, but it was entirely legal for him to do so.
Likewise as to martial law, that is also provided for in the Constitution (which allows for the writ of habeas corpus to be suspended in case of invasion or rebellion.) Thus there would be nothing illegal about TR imposing martial law in Utah (which certainly went into rebellion during the FGW.)
As for Canada, it was an occupied enemy country. That TR might impose harsh measures in occupying a foreign enemy does not mean he would be ok with subverting democracy in the United States itself.
