lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,023 
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 5, 2016 14:32:08 GMT
What if: Theodore Roosevelt president in 1912
 Roosevelt’s challenge to Taft was successful in the first batch of party primaries, but the GOP establishment still held the power, and they made sure that the conservative Taft was nominated over the progressive Roosevelt. The Taft-Roosevelt political war was at full swing in 1912, fatally splitting the Republicans and ensuring that Democrat Woodrow Wilson would be easily elected in an Electoral College landslide. Wilson garnered 435 Electoral Votes from 40 of the then-48 states, with Roosevelt, running under the banner of the Progressive “Bull Moose” Party, taking 88 Electoral Votes from six states, and the incumbent Taft winning only eight Electoral Votes from two states. So let us ask the question: what if Roosevelt had been able to win the Republican nomination from Taft? In order for Roosevelt to even get the nomination, Taft would have likely had to make campaign errors so severe, that his credibility among the GOP establishment would have vanished, giving Roosevelt at least a fighting chance at the convention. Keeping in mind that the South was solidly Democratic at the time, the Republicans needed a united party to continue their all-but-unbroken dominance of the White House that had been in place since 1861; in that time only Andrew Johnson and Grover Cleveland represented the Democrats there, with Cleveland the only Democrat to win an election. Roosevelt’s natural charisma and ability to draw support would have been assets against a bumbling Taft, and if he had given a speech at the convention, perhaps enough delegates would have broken with the pro-Taft establishment and demanded Roosevelt be nominated. If they would have succeeded, then Taft would have been the first incumbent President denied re-nomination since Chester Arthur in 1884, and the first elected President denied re-nomination since Franklin Pierce in 1856. Perhaps, for the good of the party, Roosevelt’s political wars with Taft and Robert La Follette, the future Progressive Party nominee in 1924, would have been put aside. Perhaps La Follette might have been won over by the promise of a Cabinet post, as the first Secretary of Labor after the department’s split from Commerce. A Roosevelt nomination would have put the Progressives at the head of the party, meaning that the platform would have been tailored to their interests rather than those of the establishment. It would not be a stretch to have Hiram Johnson, Roosevelt’s running mate on the real-life Progressive ticket in 1912, to join the former President on the Republican ticket. The New Nationalism pushed by Roosevelt would form the basis of the Republican campaign against Wilson’s New Freedom agenda, with the former more reliant on government activism than the latter. By combining the popular vote totals won by Roosevelt and Taft in the real 1912 election, a united Republican ticket would have won election. Said popular vote total would be 7,608,546 compared to the 6,294,284 won by Wilson. In terms of Electoral Votes, Roosevelt-Johnson would have won 379 Electoral Votes from 34 states, with Wilson-Marshall winning 152 Electoral Votes from 14 states: the 11 former Confederate states plus Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Arizona. Roosevelt would have continued the Progressive agenda upon his return to office as the 28th President, akin to what Wilson actually did but through a Republican governing perspective—speaking of which, the Republicans, not split in this scenario, would have likely kept control of Congress. Perhaps women’s suffrage would have come about earlier than in real life, this being the largest difference on the domestic front. In foreign affairs, Roosevelt bringing the United States into World War I sooner; I doubt Roosevelt would have let the German sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 go without a response and the following might happen:  President Roosevelt reviews tanks from 1st Armored “Rough Riders” battalion heading to France.
- World War I ends two years sooner. It takes almost a year to build the ships, arm the troops, train them, and land them in France. By late 1915, though, the American Expeditionary Force of 10 million soldiers is fighting alongside the French and English armies on the Western Front. Even with the wasteful tactics of the European generals, which sometimes wipe out thousands of soldiers in hours, the Allies put enough pressure on the Germans to crack their defenses. The Kaiser’s army falls back, across France, into Germany, with the Allies in pursuit. As winter begins in 1916, the Germans are asking for peace terms. - The Communists never gain power in Russia. Although the Russian army suffers a paralyzing defeat on the Eastern Front, it is mostly intact when the war ends and the troops march home. The German government is too busy saving itself in 1917 to send the exiled Lenin back into Russia. Without their charismatic leader, the Bolsheviks of Moscow make little progress stirring up revolution. Russian veterans happily round up the loudest revolutionaries and ship them off to Siberia. By November, when the Bolsheviks would have seized the government, they have disappeared underground. Roosevelt may also have been able to push for a limited-scale League of Nations, which would likely have also failed as it did in real life. But he would have been a presence at the peace negotiations, perhaps influencing some border changes from real life, especially with regards to Europe and the Middle East. But the post-war political and economic climate may have been defined by severe recession and labor unrest, giving the Democrats control of Congress in 1918. The stress from the post-war situation would have been too much for Roosevelt, and he would have likely died on or before January 6, 1919, leaving Hiram Johnson at the helm to deal with the nation’s economic woes.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 5, 2016 19:41:01 GMT
I think the article is too optimistic about how quickly the US would enter the war and then win it. OTL after ~18 months the armistice saw a little under 2M American troops in France and most of them had arrived in the last few months. As such while Roosevelt might make the US entry a bit faster I can't see them getting 10 million men in the army that quickly, let alone forces in France the same year. Also this would mean the Americans take part in attacks in 1916/17 against still largely full-strength German units in good defensive positions. As such while the war might well end in 1917 the US is going to pay a much larger cost than OTL. As such you could then see a strong reaction into isolationism after the war, or at least after Roosevelt dies.
However there's a good chance for avoiding the Bolshevik coup or that group getting anywhere near power. Might still get the February revolution in which case Russia could be anywhere from peaceful reform to civil war with either reactionaries or moderate reformers winning. Probably still likely to end up better for Russia and the world than OTL.
Roosevelt is likely to be more successful at the peace conflict that Wilson. Both because I think he knew more about the world than Wilson and because the markedly greater US role in the war would given them a lot more weight and also means the western allies at least would be in better state so a more balanced peace is possible. Doubly so if Russia survives in a stable and non-pariah status.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,023
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 5, 2016 19:51:16 GMT
I think the article is too optimistic about how quickly the US would enter the war and then win it. OTL after ~18 months the armistice saw a little under 2M American troops in France and most of them had arrived in the last few months. As such while Roosevelt might make the US entry a bit faster I can't see them getting 10 million men in the army that quickly, let alone forces in France the same year. Also this would mean the Americans take part in attacks in 1916/17 against still largely full-strength German units in good defensive positions. As such while the war might well end in 1917 the US is going to pay a much larger cost than OTL. As such you could then see a strong reaction into isolationism after the war, or at least after Roosevelt dies. Well i think you right, is 3 million a more realistic number ore still to high. However there's a good chance for avoiding the Bolshevik coup or that group getting anywhere near power. Might still get the February revolution in which case Russia could be anywhere from peaceful reform to civil war with either reactionaries or moderate reformers winning. Probably still likely to end up better for Russia and the world than OTL. Might we see a Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Roosevelt is likely to be more successful at the peace conflict that Wilson. Both because I think he knew more about the world than Wilson and because the markedly greater US role in the war would given them a lot more weight and also means the western allies at least would be in better state so a more balanced peace is possible. Doubly so if Russia survives in a stable and non-pariah status. Well maybe he can make sure that Germany is not that punished in the peace talks, we all know what happen after that. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 6, 2016 0:31:49 GMT
I think the article is too optimistic about how quickly the US would enter the war and then win it. OTL after ~18 months the armistice saw a little under 2M American troops in France and most of them had arrived in the last few months. As such while Roosevelt might make the US entry a bit faster I can't see them getting 10 million men in the army that quickly, let alone forces in France the same year. Also this would mean the Americans take part in attacks in 1916/17 against still largely full-strength German units in good defensive positions. As such while the war might well end in 1917 the US is going to pay a much larger cost than OTL. As such you could then see a strong reaction into isolationism after the war, or at least after Roosevelt dies. Well i think you right, is 3 million a more realistic number ore still to high. However there's a good chance for avoiding the Bolshevik coup or that group getting anywhere near power. Might still get the February revolution in which case Russia could be anywhere from peaceful reform to civil war with either reactionaries or moderate reformers winning. Probably still likely to end up better for Russia and the world than OTL. Might we see a Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Roosevelt is likely to be more successful at the peace conflict that Wilson. Both because I think he knew more about the world than Wilson and because the markedly greater US role in the war would given them a lot more weight and also means the western allies at least would be in better state so a more balanced peace is possible. Doubly so if Russia survives in a stable and non-pariah status. Well maybe he can make sure that Germany is not that punished in the peace talks, we all know what happen after that. Lordroel I think the US plan OTL was for an army of 4M troops of which about 1.8M were in France when the armistice was signed. As such a plan for that number would be suitable, at least as a start. Its just that given a dow shortly after the Lusitania sinking in May 1915 it would probably be 1917 at the earliest before the full force was in France. Plus going against the Germans while their still pretty strong, plus the lack of experience of the US troops losses would probably be fairly heavy, until they came up to speed with the other allies. Furthermore 4M was fairly small compered to the other main allied armies, France moblised about 6.5M men and the British empire about 7M in their respective armies. [French losses were very heavy in the early campaigns and they bore the brunt of the western front until 1916/17 when Britain came fully up to strength. As such I could see the US probably raising a 2nd wave of at least another 4M given its population at the time, although not all of them might see service. It would depend as to when the war ended and other events as to the status of Russia. My best guestimate is that possibly in spring/summer 1917 given the time to bring the US fully into the war and have them play a part in wearing down the Germans although it could be late 1916 or sometime in 1918 depending on events. With an end to the conflict in 1917 you could well see the Provisional Government survive, especially since its decision to continue the war would be vindicated by victory, a prominent place at the peace talks and the release of millions of POWs. Likely to be a period of instability but may not descend to civil war, although its possibly you might see a revival of a fairly right wing nationalism regime if the returning POWs are more conservative perhaps. [Also possibly if the PG say concedes independence to Poland, although it might get control of the straits and probably some sort of protectorate over Armenia, which could prevent further massacres of the Armenians - probably the Turks instead however]. I think by say summer 1917 the allied viewpoint is probably going to be Germany would have to be punished. You might, with the western allies being less drained and Russia staying a member of the international community, not have the desire to weaken Germany so much because of the lack of a balancing power to the east. As such some of the OTL measures might not be that strict. However still likely to be a significant reparations bill simply because of the destruction done in Belgium and NE France, let alone the east. Also if the Germans fight until the bitter end, which could mean it doesn't end until late 1917 or early 1918, there is going to be a lot of bitterness against the German leadership for what is seen as a pointless loss of life. Hence you might still see a war guilt cause. However if the fighting has carried on deep into Germany the army is going to find it a lot more difficult to spread the 'stabbed in the back' myth so its influence might be undermined and a military revival less popular. Steve |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,023
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 6, 2016 20:06:33 GMT
Well i think you right, is 3 million a more realistic number ore still to high. Might we see a Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Well maybe he can make sure that Germany is not that punished in the peace talks, we all know what happen after that. I think the US plan OTL was for an army of 4M troops of which about 1.8M were in France when the armistice was signed. That is a lot of inexperienced troops that the United States will have in France, they will suffer heavy losses. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 6, 2016 22:49:14 GMT
I think the US plan OTL was for an army of 4M troops of which about 1.8M were in France when the armistice was signed. That is a lot of inexperienced troops that the United States will have in France, they will suffer heavy losses. Very true. OTL the British and French tried to warn the US troops about some of the problems they would face but in cases found the US officers rejecting any such advice as a 'that doesn't apply to us'. In TTL it will be worse as the western allies will have less experience themselves when trying to assist the yanks and also you will have a lot more Americans going up against more powerful German defences. Your likely to see the US having their own version of the Somme and at least a million casualties throughout the conflict I would expect. Possibly more like 2M with that early an entry into the war. Still less proportionally than Britain or France but markedly more than they suffered OTL. What effect that will have on both US internal politics and society and on their view of the wider world would be interesting. Steve |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,023
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 7, 2016 4:17:40 GMT
That is a lot of inexperienced troops that the United States will have in France, they will suffer heavy losses. Very true. OTL the British and French tried to warn the US troops about some of the problems they would face but in cases found the US officers rejecting any such advice as a 'that doesn't apply to us'. In TTL it will be worse as the western allies will have less experience themselves when trying to assist the yanks and also you will have a lot more Americans going up against more powerful German defences. Your likely to see the US having their own version of the Somme and at least a million casualties throughout the conflict I would expect. Possibly more like 2M with that early an entry into the war. Still less proportionally than Britain or France but markedly more than they suffered OTL. What effect that will have on both US internal politics and society and on their view of the wider world would be interesting. Steve I wonder how the American people will react if the body count is higher than OTL, I would assume that it will be higher than the 126,000 they suffered in OTL. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 7, 2016 21:58:02 GMT
Very true. OTL the British and French tried to warn the US troops about some of the problems they would face but in cases found the US officers rejecting any such advice as a 'that doesn't apply to us'. In TTL it will be worse as the western allies will have less experience themselves when trying to assist the yanks and also you will have a lot more Americans going up against more powerful German defences. Your likely to see the US having their own version of the Somme and at least a million casualties throughout the conflict I would expect. Possibly more like 2M with that early an entry into the war. Still less proportionally than Britain or France but markedly more than they suffered OTL. What effect that will have on both US internal politics and society and on their view of the wider world would be interesting. Steve I wonder how the American people will react if the body count is higher than OTL, I would assume that it will be higher than the 126,000 they suffered in OTL. If their joining the war in 1915 and committing large forces in 1916-17 then I would expect that at least a million casualties and quite possibly more if the Germans fight to the bitter end. Steve |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,023
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2016 3:47:26 GMT
I wonder how the American people will react if the body count is higher than OTL, I would assume that it will be higher than the 126,000 they suffered in OTL. If their joining the war in 1915 and committing large forces in 1916-17 then I would expect that at least a million casualties and quite possibly more if the Germans fight to the bitter end. Steve That is a very high number, not even in World War II the United States suffered 1 million casualties. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 8, 2016 15:08:29 GMT
If their joining the war in 1915 and committing large forces in 1916-17 then I would expect that at least a million casualties and quite possibly more if the Germans fight to the bitter end. Steve That is a very high number, not even in World War II the United States suffered 1 million casualties. Lordroel WWII the Soviets did the heavy dying in wearing down the majority of the German army. WWI the prolonged fighting on the western front meant western losses were much higher. I remember seeing a comment that for the average infantryman on the western front in 44-45 the chance of being wounded/killed was at least as large as during 1914-18. However the key factor was that was only for ~11 months due to the rapid fall of France in 1940 and the fact only relatively small forces were deployed in N Africa and Italy before the Normandy campaign. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_I) for details on total casualties on the western front, total of about 8 million. If the US moblises at even only half the rate of the smaller populations of Britain and France its likely to be in that sort of ball-park figure. I have more details in some of my source books at home but unfortunately at mum's now. [Also means that spell-checking is no longer working as on the lap-top - don't know why?? Apologies if any problems as a result.] Steve |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,023
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2016 15:28:15 GMT
That is a very high number, not even in World War II the United States suffered 1 million casualties. Lordroel WWII the Soviets did the heavy dying in wearing down the majority of the German army. WWI the prolonged fighting on the western front meant western losses were much higher. I remember seeing a comment that for the average infantryman on the western front in 44-45 the chance of being wounded/killed was at least as large as during 1914-18. However the key factor was that was only for ~11 months due to the rapid fall of France in 1940 and the fact only relatively small forces were deployed in N Africa and Italy before the Normandy campaign. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_I) for details on total casualties on the western front, total of about 8 million. If the US moblises at even only half the rate of the smaller populations of Britain and France its likely to be in that sort of ball-park figure. I have more details in some of my source books at home but unfortunately at mum's now. [Also means that spell-checking is no longer working as on the lap-top - don't know why?? Apologies if any problems as a result.] Steve I do wonder what happens with Mexico, if the United States enters in a war in late 1915 than there is no Zimmermann Telegram of 1917 as i think Mexico will never be crazy enough to join Germany in a military alliance when the United States is already committed in the war. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 8, 2016 16:27:55 GMT
Lordroel WWII the Soviets did the heavy dying in wearing down the majority of the German army. WWI the prolonged fighting on the western front meant western losses were much higher. I remember seeing a comment that for the average infantryman on the western front in 44-45 the chance of being wounded/killed was at least as large as during 1914-18. However the key factor was that was only for ~11 months due to the rapid fall of France in 1940 and the fact only relatively small forces were deployed in N Africa and Italy before the Normandy campaign. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Front_(World_War_I) for details on total casualties on the western front, total of about 8 million. If the US moblises at even only half the rate of the smaller populations of Britain and France its likely to be in that sort of ball-park figure. I have more details in some of my source books at home but unfortunately at mum's now. [Also means that spell-checking is no longer working as on the lap-top - don't know why?? Apologies if any problems as a result.] Steve I do wonder what happens with Mexico, if the United States enters in a war in late 1915 than there is no Zimmermann Telegram of 1917 as i think Mexico will never be crazy enough to join Germany in a military alliance when the United States is already committed in the war. Lordroel Definitely not. They weren't insane enough to consider it OTL, although the German government was mad/desperate enough to make the offer. Especially not when by 1917 the US will be fully geared up for war, with planty of troops training in the US. Steve |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,023
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 8, 2016 17:07:08 GMT
I do wonder what happens with Mexico, if the United States enters in a war in late 1915 than there is no Zimmermann Telegram of 1917 as i think Mexico will never be crazy enough to join Germany in a military alliance when the United States is already committed in the war. Lordroel Definitely not. They weren't insane enough to consider it OTL, although the German government was mad/desperate enough to make the offer. Especially not when by 1917 the US will be fully geared up for war, with planty of troops training in the US. Steve I wonder would Theodore Roosevelt win the 1916 elections due having brought the United States into a war a year earlier, especially with the media reporting the horrors of the Western Front. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on Nov 8, 2016 23:45:06 GMT
Lordroel Definitely not. They weren't insane enough to consider it OTL, although the German government was mad/desperate enough to make the offer. Especially not when by 1917 the US will be fully geared up for war, with planty of troops training in the US. Steve I wonder would Theodore Roosevelt win the 1916 elections due having brought the United States into a war a year earlier, especially with the media reporting the horrors of the Western Front. As alway it would depend on the circumstances but suspect that Roosevelt would win it. [Presuming he decides to stand as President again. Apart from any health issues this would mean he's standing as President for a 3rd time, which would break a tradition dating back to Washington]. The US would probably only commit more than token forces in summer 1916 so, presuming the Germans attack at Verdun they would probably be used as a 2nd wave so to speak in the Somme campaign. As such I suspect losses would not be that massive that early and the population might well support the President out of patriotic reasons, plus he seemed to have a good appeal to the ordinary working person. This might differ if say the main opposition was a clearly anti-war candicate but even then my gut feeling is that Roosevelt would probably win. Steve |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,023
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 9, 2016 3:47:15 GMT
I wonder would Theodore Roosevelt win the 1916 elections due having brought the United States into a war a year earlier, especially with the media reporting the horrors of the Western Front. As alway it would depend on the circumstances but suspect that Roosevelt would win it. [Presuming he decides to stand as President again. Apart from any health issues this would mean he's standing as President for a 3rd time, which would break a tradition dating back to Washington]. Steve But technically is is already a third time president because he was already president from 1901 to 1909/ |
|
