WI Woodrow Wilson was re-elected and became a Nazi?
- Thread starter JacobB17
- Start date
More then I could possibly list, unless you think Stalinist Russia were the Good Guys.
Keep in mind the Wilson is one of the worst Presidents ever. And what he did durring WW1 and what is peopl did when he got Ill are so over the top wrong that his last 4 years of his administration sound like a Hollywood villain. So if he somehow got back in I hate to think what his administration would try.
OK, there is one and only one quote from Wilson that could conceivably justify any belief that Wilson would have any sympathy for Hitler. Shortly before his death, he remarked to Raymond Fosdick, "Some day another Bismarck will arise and the Germans will wipe the French off the face of the earth — and I hope they do." https://books.google.com/books?id=lxoOdaCDbpEC&pg=PA593 I'm inclined to think this was more a statement of frustration (shared by many Americans in the 1920s) with France's recent foreign policy (the Ruhr occupation, etc. [1] ) than a serious anticipation of Hitler. In that same conversation, he said, "Mussolini is a coward. Somebody should call his bluff. Dictators are all cowards." His dislike for France and Italy had also been revealed by a radio address in 1923 when he accused them of "making waste paper of the Treaty of Versailles."
For John Milton Cooper, Jr's argument that even a semi-invalid Wilson might do better in 1924 than the hapless Davis did (which is not saying much!) see https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...enough-and-wins-in-1924.447597/#post-17300873
BTW, as I noted in that post, some of WIlson's detractors here might be surprised by some 1922 items mentioned in a 1923 *Time* listing of Wilson's 1921-3 activities:
"Thanks State Attorney Lyon, of Virginia, for saving Negro from mob. July 30"
"Spurns charge of church favoritism made by Klan official. Aug. 25."
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,716262-2,00.html (Also mentioned is "Sends greeting to Zionist Organization of America celebrating establishment of Palestine Mandate. Aug. 1" Wilson remained philo-Semitic to the end.)
As I also noted about WIlson, in at least one respect he showed better judgment than his son-in-law McAdoo "By contrast, when Wilson and his former Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby were law partners in 1921-2, Wilson was very scrupulous about what clients the firm should take. He declined to involve himself in a case about the Costa Rica-Panama boundary and in another one involving Ecuador and some American banks. He did agree to represent the Western Ukrainian National Republic's bid for recognition by the League of Nations. (Although, as Colby soon concluded, there was not much they could do for the Western Ukrainians; Poland was intent on treating their territory as an integral part of Poland.) Most important, in August 1922 when representatives of the oil company owned by Harry Sinclair asked the firm to represent them in the upcoming Senate investigation into the Teapot Dome leases, and when they offered a huge retainer, Wilson smelled a rat: "Colby must be a child not to see through such a scheme," he told his wife Edith. (Cooper, p. 581)"
[1] The "isolationist" Borah urged the US to protest the Ruhr occupation: https://www.nytimes.com/1923/05/05/...nator-wants-united-states-to-complain-of.html
For John Milton Cooper, Jr's argument that even a semi-invalid Wilson might do better in 1924 than the hapless Davis did (which is not saying much!) see https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...enough-and-wins-in-1924.447597/#post-17300873
BTW, as I noted in that post, some of WIlson's detractors here might be surprised by some 1922 items mentioned in a 1923 *Time* listing of Wilson's 1921-3 activities:
"Thanks State Attorney Lyon, of Virginia, for saving Negro from mob. July 30"
"Spurns charge of church favoritism made by Klan official. Aug. 25."
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,716262-2,00.html (Also mentioned is "Sends greeting to Zionist Organization of America celebrating establishment of Palestine Mandate. Aug. 1" Wilson remained philo-Semitic to the end.)
As I also noted about WIlson, in at least one respect he showed better judgment than his son-in-law McAdoo "By contrast, when Wilson and his former Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby were law partners in 1921-2, Wilson was very scrupulous about what clients the firm should take. He declined to involve himself in a case about the Costa Rica-Panama boundary and in another one involving Ecuador and some American banks. He did agree to represent the Western Ukrainian National Republic's bid for recognition by the League of Nations. (Although, as Colby soon concluded, there was not much they could do for the Western Ukrainians; Poland was intent on treating their territory as an integral part of Poland.) Most important, in August 1922 when representatives of the oil company owned by Harry Sinclair asked the firm to represent them in the upcoming Senate investigation into the Teapot Dome leases, and when they offered a huge retainer, Wilson smelled a rat: "Colby must be a child not to see through such a scheme," he told his wife Edith. (Cooper, p. 581)"
[1] The "isolationist" Borah urged the US to protest the Ruhr occupation: https://www.nytimes.com/1923/05/05/...nator-wants-united-states-to-complain-of.html
Last edited:
Chapman
Donor
When it comes to opposing Nazis, you either do or you don't. There's no equivocating necessary. It isn't so simple as "Nazis vs. Good Guys" but if you do nothing to stop the Nazis, you are absolutely one of the bad guys.
And no, that doesn't make Stalinists "Good Guys" by default. Just makes them somewhat better than the people who did little to nothing or actively opposed stopping the Nazis.
As for the OP - Wilson was a horrible, racist POS. But I can't see him joining the Nazis straight up, for reasons already listed and for many others. I just don't see him emulating the whole Nazi ideology, even if he agrees with some of its racial "beliefs."
Interesting. Granted that this is in the realm of fantasy due to american isolationism, what would a "france-critical"(?) US administration look like?
Supposing Wilson pulls an Ezra Pound?
He has the same stroke as IOTL, but physically recovers better and lives until the mid 1930s. However the stroke makes him senile. He moves to either Germany or Italy, and becomes part of Hitler's inner circle or an honored guest of Mussolini, writing a book supporting fascism.`
So you basically have the situation where John Tyler becomes a member of the Confederate Congress, but its much worse.
He has the same stroke as IOTL, but physically recovers better and lives until the mid 1930s. However the stroke makes him senile. He moves to either Germany or Italy, and becomes part of Hitler's inner circle or an honored guest of Mussolini, writing a book supporting fascism.`
So you basically have the situation where John Tyler becomes a member of the Confederate Congress, but its much worse.
This TL assumes all forms of racial hostility are transferrable which is not the case. Wilson's form of racism amounted to seeing blacks as genetically inferior along with being a deeply wounded child of the Civil War and Reconstruction writing on his death bed about seeing Robert E Lee when he was 13.
From news articles at the time Wilson was capable of being very friendly publicly towards blacks who fought for the South during the Civil War and/or opposed the radicals during Reconstruction, but hated the ones who supported the radicals.
Most elite Europeans of the early 20s century had a level of viewing blacks as inferior. The Nazis would have been seen by Wilson or really any major American southern figure of the 18th or 19th century as a Middle Ages throwback not being big on the Enlightenment, democracy, and believing Jews were the enemy within.
From news articles at the time Wilson was capable of being very friendly publicly towards blacks who fought for the South during the Civil War and/or opposed the radicals during Reconstruction, but hated the ones who supported the radicals.
Most elite Europeans of the early 20s century had a level of viewing blacks as inferior. The Nazis would have been seen by Wilson or really any major American southern figure of the 18th or 19th century as a Middle Ages throwback not being big on the Enlightenment, democracy, and believing Jews were the enemy within.
Last edited:
Some people don't seem to realize that there was absolutely no relationship between southern segregationism and a favorable attitude toward Nazi Germany. Quite the contrary, FDR had to rely heavily on southerners in 1941: "Southern representatives in Congress voted 109 to 7 in favor of Draft Extension and 95 to 16 for revision of the Neutrality Act in 1941." "in that crucial debate the South more than any other section was convinced that a British victory over the Axis was esssential to American security and welfare.' ttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2955258 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2955258
Last edited:
Garrison
Donor
No it can't happen for a series of complex social, political and economic factors that mean if people want to posit the USA with a Nazi president the onus is on them to come up with a plausible scenario, which I frankly doubt they can do.
Huey never said that. Indeed, he actually replied to the question if fascism ever came to America, that 'it will be called anti-fascism.'
Mind elaborating? Reasonable people can also debate with an open mind.
JacobB17, as much as I hate saying a idea just can't happen, I am very skeptical about your initial idea. Wilson was too old, not at all liked, wouldn't implement the fiscal conservatism of the Republicans, and is simply not the right candidate for a Fascist America. Dcharleos really loves Father Coughlin, and him and other candidates mentioned. Alternatively, maybe if you have a POD back far enough, you could create your own America that by the '20-30s is ripe for a Fascist takeover with a fictional leader?
But don't feel demoralized.
dcharles
Banned
Lol, apparently we're both wrong https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Huey_Long
Check at the bottom of the page.
Political ideologies make odd bedfellows. And ideological shift is like walking blind in a cave, moving towards the sound of rushing water, getting there, and then claiming you didn't walk that far (or you stayed in the same spot and the cave moved around you). People change for their own reasons, people follow something for their own reasons and people see what they want to see.
The list of people that thought Hitler was acceptable or laudable is gross. These people weren't necessarily ardent Nazis, although many could drift into being so. It starts off with a carrot and stick to draw support: people making an idol of what they want to see in order to solve a personal concern. Then its a hardening of that personal position. Individual outlook, understanding and appraisal becomes increasingly skewed. There is a hardening perception of the other as the enemy, and a rejection and vilification of criticism and the critic. It becomes us versus them. And the posture is one of attack and defensiveness as a result of dumping your personal self and estimation of self worth into something that stands as an idol. The whole psychology is built to reinforce itself. Even criticism becomes a calling to stand firmer and a sign that it must be right because the other is the enemy and wrong so what they criticize must be all the more right.
In short, people can lose themselves in ideology incredibly easily. On a personal note, this is a reason I dislike the "attack dog" folks even when they support things I support. There's certainly the moral reasons and the reasons of how you behave as a person (to self, society and existence itself). Its also because I know that they're run by Animus, base instinct and a total lack of interest in understanding and grace. For them, its a matter of power games rather than understanding, competence and trying to figure out what is right rather than assuming you're already right. And as soon as it is convenient, those same people will go to the complete other side with all that ignorance and fervor and turn it on the side they were from. There's rarely a rising-above.
TLDR: It you can argue it realistically, I think it's a fascinating idea and demonstrates the change of a man. We all have the angel and the devil inside us and it is often a case of who is winning at the time in our lives.
The list of people that thought Hitler was acceptable or laudable is gross. These people weren't necessarily ardent Nazis, although many could drift into being so. It starts off with a carrot and stick to draw support: people making an idol of what they want to see in order to solve a personal concern. Then its a hardening of that personal position. Individual outlook, understanding and appraisal becomes increasingly skewed. There is a hardening perception of the other as the enemy, and a rejection and vilification of criticism and the critic. It becomes us versus them. And the posture is one of attack and defensiveness as a result of dumping your personal self and estimation of self worth into something that stands as an idol. The whole psychology is built to reinforce itself. Even criticism becomes a calling to stand firmer and a sign that it must be right because the other is the enemy and wrong so what they criticize must be all the more right.
In short, people can lose themselves in ideology incredibly easily. On a personal note, this is a reason I dislike the "attack dog" folks even when they support things I support. There's certainly the moral reasons and the reasons of how you behave as a person (to self, society and existence itself). Its also because I know that they're run by Animus, base instinct and a total lack of interest in understanding and grace. For them, its a matter of power games rather than understanding, competence and trying to figure out what is right rather than assuming you're already right. And as soon as it is convenient, those same people will go to the complete other side with all that ignorance and fervor and turn it on the side they were from. There's rarely a rising-above.
TLDR: It you can argue it realistically, I think it's a fascinating idea and demonstrates the change of a man. We all have the angel and the devil inside us and it is often a case of who is winning at the time in our lives.
a few random thoughts.
1). Wilson would not have been able to get elected dog catcher a couple years after WW1. He ruined his rep with a lot of. folks after getting elected on “he kept us out of war” then promptly taking us to war. He lost others because they lost family in the war or were in it themselves and resented him for it. Then add in more upset folks as it became obvious that the US didnt trully accomplish anything lasting by going to. war as the peace treaty was vindictive as all get. out. Add in the stunts he pulled during the war and then those his administaration/family did when he was ill and he just has way to much baggage. So he was not a popular person.
2) While Hitler is obviously a mad man of the 1st water, a lot of this is much much more obvious with what we now know then what was available in the early 30s. So while we have some folks that supported him more then probably they should have the reality is. that he had turned around Germany in a pretty quick and noticeable manor (yes it would have ultimately imploded but that was not readily obvious to the outside. His Anti-semitism was only just getting obviously over the top. It was not until 38 we get kristallnacht. So it was probably 32-36 that his anti-semitism moved out into the. open as being ”over the top”
1). Wilson would not have been able to get elected dog catcher a couple years after WW1. He ruined his rep with a lot of. folks after getting elected on “he kept us out of war” then promptly taking us to war. He lost others because they lost family in the war or were in it themselves and resented him for it. Then add in more upset folks as it became obvious that the US didnt trully accomplish anything lasting by going to. war as the peace treaty was vindictive as all get. out. Add in the stunts he pulled during the war and then those his administaration/family did when he was ill and he just has way to much baggage. So he was not a popular person.
2) While Hitler is obviously a mad man of the 1st water, a lot of this is much much more obvious with what we now know then what was available in the early 30s. So while we have some folks that supported him more then probably they should have the reality is. that he had turned around Germany in a pretty quick and noticeable manor (yes it would have ultimately imploded but that was not readily obvious to the outside. His Anti-semitism was only just getting obviously over the top. It was not until 38 we get kristallnacht. So it was probably 32-36 that his anti-semitism moved out into the. open as being ”over the top”
No, thx. That kind of political discussion goes on another forum and I'm not getting dragged into bringing a mod here