How Would An Only-WW1 World React To WW2?

[Zyobot]

It killed, maimed, shocked, and shattered more than any war before. The moment Gavrilo Princip’s bullet connected with Archduke Ferdinand's body was the moment that locked Europe’s next four years on a path of grinding industrial war and the unprecedented cataclysm it entailed. The resulting war was not one of chivalrous bravery and decisive victory, but a bloodbath of earth-shattering artillery, flesh-ripping machine guns, and futile charges over the top that made the filthy, disease-ridden trenches the soldiers festered in look like a protective (if dirty) embrace. It ended multiple empires, started violent revolutions, traumatized victor and vanquished alike, and left somewhere around twenty-million dead (and tens of millions more wounded). And then, with the final armistice taking effect at 11:00 A.M. on November 11th, 1918, it was over. The First World War finally came to an end.

How unfortunate, then, that a Second World War—one bigger, badder, and two years longer than its not-to-distant predecessor—broke out only two decades later. To that end, what would people living in a world where World War II was never fought react to it? Exact reactions hinge on the specifics of the world itself, of course, such as whether it comes about via the Treaty of Versailles being more conciliatory or Britain and France drawing a firm line in the sand against Hitler’s Germany early (among other possibilities). It also depends on precisely how World War II as we fought it is presented to them, as they might find an in-universe AH book on the subject disturbing, but ultimately ASB compared to a literal portal to OTL 1940s, with its definitive proof of how humanity chose to double down rather than figure it out the first time inspiring far more frightened and appalled reactions on the part of people from the “Only-WW1” universe. (Those are my rather general and amorphous thoughts on the subject, anyway.)

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

[SpaceOrbisHistory]

Nov 1, 2021 2:19:32 GMT Zyobot said:

It killed, maimed, shocked, and shattered more than any war before. The moment Gavrilo Princip’s bullet connected with Archduke Ferdinand's body was the moment that locked Europe’s next four years on a path of grinding industrial war and the unprecedented cataclysm it entailed. The resulting war was not one of chivalrous bravery and decisive victory, but a bloodbath of earth-shattering artillery, flesh-ripping machine guns, and futile charges over the top that made the filthy, disease-ridden trenches the soldiers festered in look like a protective (if dirty) embrace. It ended multiple empires, started violent revolutions, traumatized victor and vanquished alike, and left somewhere around twenty-million dead (and tens of millions more wounded). And then, with the final armistice taking effect at 11:00 A.M. on November 11th, 1918, it was over. The First World War finally came to an end.

How unfortunate, then, that a Second World War—one bigger, badder, and two years longer than its not-to-distant predecessor—broke out only two decades later. To that end, what would people living in a world where World War II was never fought react to it? Exact reactions hinge on the specifics of the world itself, of course, such as whether it comes about via the Treaty of Versailles being more conciliatory or Britain and France drawing a firm line in the sand against Hitler’s Germany early (among other possibilities). It also depends on precisely how World War II as we fought it is presented to them, as they might find an in-universe AH book on the subject disturbing, but ultimately ASB compared to a literal portal to OTL 1940s, with its definitive proof of how humanity chose to double down rather than figure it out the first time inspiring far more frightened and appalled reactions on the part of people from the “Only-WW1” universe. (Those are my rather general and amorphous thoughts on the subject, anyway.)

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

I would think the idea that a generation later you would essentially be back to where it was before. Only this time the loss of life is far higher and the reasons far darker. World War 1 wasn't something most people could understand. The idea that a war could be worse would be nearly unimaginable.

The sheer thought of a bomb so powerful whole cities are removed would be viewed as pure nonsense unless one was to see it's aftereffects. Alot of the big names were in that war so seeing themselves some 20 odd years older would be a sight.

[Zyobot]

Nov 21, 2021 5:30:48 GMT SpaceOrbisHistory said:

Nov 1, 2021 2:19:32 GMT Zyobot said:

It killed, maimed, shocked, and shattered more than any war before. The moment Gavrilo Princip’s bullet connected with Archduke Ferdinand's body was the moment that locked Europe’s next four years on a path of grinding industrial war and the unprecedented cataclysm it entailed. The resulting war was not one of chivalrous bravery and decisive victory, but a bloodbath of earth-shattering artillery, flesh-ripping machine guns, and futile charges over the top that made the filthy, disease-ridden trenches the soldiers festered in look like a protective (if dirty) embrace. It ended multiple empires, started violent revolutions, traumatized victor and vanquished alike, and left somewhere around twenty-million dead (and tens of millions more wounded). And then, with the final armistice taking effect at 11:00 A.M. on November 11th, 1918, it was over. The First World War finally came to an end.

How unfortunate, then, that a Second World War—one bigger, badder, and two years longer than its not-to-distant predecessor—broke out only two decades later. To that end, what would people living in a world where World War II was never fought react to it? Exact reactions hinge on the specifics of the world itself, of course, such as whether it comes about via the Treaty of Versailles being more conciliatory or Britain and France drawing a firm line in the sand against Hitler’s Germany early (among other possibilities). It also depends on precisely how World War II as we fought it is presented to them, as they might find an in-universe AH book on the subject disturbing, but ultimately ASB compared to a literal portal to OTL 1940s, with its definitive proof of how humanity chose to double down rather than figure it out the first time inspiring far more frightened and appalled reactions on the part of people from the “Only-WW1” universe. (Those are my rather general and amorphous thoughts on the subject, anyway.)

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

I would think the idea that a generation later you would essentially be back to where it was before. Only this time the loss of life is far higher and the reasons far darker. World War 1 wasn't something most people could understand. The idea that a war could be worse would be nearly unimaginable.

The sheer thought of a bomb so powerful whole cities are removed would be viewed as pure nonsense unless one was to see it's aftereffects. Alot of the big names were in that war so seeing themselves some 20 odd years older would be a sight.

I’d ask if you think it’s possible for nukes to develop in different circumstances than World War II as we know it, but that strays a bit beyond the scope of this thread. Otherwise, I agree on the atom bomb having insane shock value; being destructive enough to make chemical and biological weapons look like children’s toys tends to do that.

Depending on how their lives turn out, it’d also be an interesting case study in how luck and happenstance can propel obscure figures into positions of power, as had happened with both Hitler and Stalin. (This assumes their ATL counterparts remain unknown figures who contribute little to nothing in the grand scheme of things, admittedly.)

[SpaceOrbisHistory]

Nov 21, 2021 5:41:51 GMT Zyobot said:

Nov 21, 2021 5:30:48 GMT SpaceOrbisHistory said:

I would think the idea that a generation later you would essentially be back to where it was before. Only this time the loss of life is far higher and the reasons far darker. World War 1 wasn't something most people could understand. The idea that a war could be worse would be nearly unimaginable.

The sheer thought of a bomb so powerful whole cities are removed would be viewed as pure nonsense unless one was to see it's aftereffects. Alot of the big names were in that war so seeing themselves some 20 odd years older would be a sight.

I’d ask if you think it’s possible for nukes to develop in different circumstances than World War II as we know it, but that strays a bit beyond the scope of this thread. Otherwise, I agree on the atom bomb having insane shock value; being destructive enough to make chemical and biological weapons look like children’s toys tends to do that.

Depending on how their lives turn out, it’d also be an interesting case study in how luck and happenstance can propel obscure figures into positions of power, as had happened with both Hitler and Stalin. (This assumes their ATL counterparts remain unknown figures who contribute little to nothing in the grand scheme of things, admittedly.)

I don't know what the scientific understanding on atoms was at the time of the first world war but war is a great thing to get people thinking on it. I fundamentally don't see a logical reason why we couldn't see the advent of nuclear weapons before 1936-1938. The Manhattan Project was started in 1942 and ended in 1946. So if you pick some of the best minds to the task of finding a way to split the atom and you should be able to see the advent of nuclear weapons, at least in the intermediate years after the war. 

If you're asking do I think we can see that in this war. The answer is no. 

[stevep]

Nov 29, 2021 0:35:43 GMT SpaceOrbisHistory said:

Nov 21, 2021 5:41:51 GMT Zyobot said:

I’d ask if you think it’s possible for nukes to develop in different circumstances than World War II as we know it, but that strays a bit beyond the scope of this thread. Otherwise, I agree on the atom bomb having insane shock value; being destructive enough to make chemical and biological weapons look like children’s toys tends to do that.

Depending on how their lives turn out, it’d also be an interesting case study in how luck and happenstance can propel obscure figures into positions of power, as had happened with both Hitler and Stalin. (This assumes their ATL counterparts remain unknown figures who contribute little to nothing in the grand scheme of things, admittedly.)

I don't know what the scientific understanding on atoms was at the time of the first world war but war is a great thing to get people thinking on it. I fundamentally don't see a logical reason why we couldn't see the advent of nuclear weapons before 1936-1938. The Manhattan Project was started in 1942 and ended in 1946. So if you pick some of the best minds to the task of finding a way to split the atom and you should be able to see the advent of nuclear weapons, at least in the intermediate years after the war. 

If you're asking do I think we can see that in this war. The answer is no. 

  Must admit I'm doubtful of this.  WWI helped give experience of the huge technological and bureaucratic projects that would be needed for such research but also left a lot of very intelligent people dead, an antipathy to weapons among many and also a rejection of scientific advancement among others.  It was the further demands of WWII - and especially the fears that the Nazis might get them 1st - that drove much of the massive project involved to complete their development by 1945. 

  As such I think without WWII nukes would come later.  They might be more generally spread as also without WWII devastating so much of the world and also their use prompting demands for their control, you could see a fair number of powers developing them in the late 40's and early 50's onward.  Of course what would matter in this world would be when and under what circumstances their 1st 'used' as weapons.  Which could be very costly if assorted powers develop them with a measure of secrecy as there's the danger of more than one power thinking they had a monopoly.  Plus with possible large numbers of weapons being detonated in the 1st time their used in warfare things could be a lot bloodier and possibly a very powerful reaction against them afterwards.  Don't think this would result in many - probably none - of the existing powers ending their nuclear capacity as a large war would show how there's no clear counter to them other than deterrence.

[Zyobot]

Since military history seems to be your specialty, miletus12, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on this? As said in the OP, I know exact reactions depend on the details of how an only-WW1 develops, which may range from "WTF?!?" to "Oh, so that's how war with Mr. Hitler would've gone, had Britain and France appeased him."

[miletus12]

Nov 29, 2021 0:35:43 GMT SpaceOrbisHistory said:

I don't know what the scientific understanding on atoms was at the time of the first world war but war is a great thing to get people thinking on it. I fundamentally don't see a logical reason why we couldn't see the advent of nuclear weapons before 1936-1938. The Manhattan Project was started in 1942 and ended in 1946. So if you pick some of the best minds to the task of finding a way to split the atom and you should be able to see the advent of nuclear weapons, at least in the intermediate years after the war. 

But that is almost what happened. It was just a six-year slippage.

Jan 7, 2022 20:12:57 GMT Zyobot said:

Since military history seems to be your specialty, miletus12, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on this? As said in the OP, I know exact reactions depend on the details of how an only-WW1 develops, which may range from "WTF?!?" to "Oh, so that's how war with Mr. Hitler would've gone, had Britain and France appeased him."

For a WWII to be prevented, one has to suggest that the Allies win in Russia in 1919 and that somehow Woodrow Wilson does not muck it all up and the US joins the League of Nations. Also; WWI 1919 has to happen. No armistice. Fight to victory and that means one occupies Germany in a semblance of the four-power agreement post WWII with the zones being France, UK, US, and Italy.

I leave it up to you to speculate about the additional 5-10 million dead in WWI (1919) and the subsequent US-Japanese war of 1930.

[stevep]

Jan 7, 2022 21:31:44 GMT miletus12 said:

Nov 29, 2021 0:35:43 GMT SpaceOrbisHistory said:

I don't know what the scientific understanding on atoms was at the time of the first world war but war is a great thing to get people thinking on it. I fundamentally don't see a logical reason why we couldn't see the advent of nuclear weapons before 1936-1938. The Manhattan Project was started in 1942 and ended in 1946. So if you pick some of the best minds to the task of finding a way to split the atom and you should be able to see the advent of nuclear weapons, at least in the intermediate years after the war. 

But that is almost what happened. It was just a six-year slippage.

Jan 7, 2022 20:12:57 GMT Zyobot said:

Since military history seems to be your specialty, miletus12, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on this? As said in the OP, I know exact reactions depend on the details of how an only-WW1 develops, which may range from "WTF?!?" to "Oh, so that's how war with Mr. Hitler would've gone, had Britain and France appeased him."

For a WWII to be prevented, one has to suggest that the Allies win in Russia in 1919 and that somehow Woodrow Wilson does not muck it all up and the US joins the League of Nations. Also; WWI 1919 has to happen. No armistice. Fight to victory and that means one occupies Germany in a semblance of the four-power agreement post WWII with the zones being France, UK, US, and Italy.

I leave it up to you to speculate about the additional 5-10 million dead in WWI (1919) and the subsequent US-Japanese war of 1930.

  Interesting post but doubtful of this last bit.  If the liberal powers win big time and there's less horror at the pointlessness of WWI then Japan is likely to stay liberal itself longer and also be more aware of the dangers of becoming an isolated militaristic state.  Similarly if WWI goes into 1919 and its anything like as bloody as your suggesting then the US will have suffered markedly more casualties so it turn its probably unlikely to be aggressive enough to pick a war with Japan.  As such I can't see the basis for a US-Japan war, especially in this time period as a likely event.

[miletus12]

Jan 9, 2022 12:52:22 GMT stevep said:

Interesting post but doubtful of this last bit.  If the liberal powers win big time and there's less horror at the pointlessness of WWI then Japan is likely to stay liberal itself longer and also be more aware of the dangers of becoming an isolated militaristic state.  Similarly if WWI goes into 1919 and its anything like as bloody as your suggesting then the US will have suffered markedly more casualties so it turn its probably unlikely to be aggressive enough to pick a war with Japan.  As such I can't see the basis for a US-Japan war, especially in this time period as a likely event.

Plan Orange was inevitable. The Japanese were already down the slippery slope and well on their way by the time of the Tanaka administration.

As for WWI (1919), I suspect I underestimate the horrors involved. The US reaction, presuming that Wilson dies and Thomas R. Marshall takes over; it is very likely that Pershing will run over him, even more than Pershing ran over Wilson. It could result in the very kind of militarization one sees happen after the Korean War. Especially if Pershing, who had a severe case of swelled head and inflated ego, runs for and wins the presidency in 1922. It is not unreasonable to see the same kind of propaganda apparatus, Wilson invented, being used to sell Pershingism the way it will be used in Europe to sell another kind of militarism, there in the 1920s and 1930s.

I am afraid it is all too plausible that the Americans will become even more jingoistic.

[stevep]

Jan 9, 2022 20:04:45 GMT miletus12 said:

Jan 9, 2022 12:52:22 GMT stevep said:

Interesting post but doubtful of this last bit.  If the liberal powers win big time and there's less horror at the pointlessness of WWI then Japan is likely to stay liberal itself longer and also be more aware of the dangers of becoming an isolated militaristic state.  Similarly if WWI goes into 1919 and its anything like as bloody as your suggesting then the US will have suffered markedly more casualties so it turn its probably unlikely to be aggressive enough to pick a war with Japan.  As such I can't see the basis for a US-Japan war, especially in this time period as a likely event.

Plan Orange was inevitable. The Japanese were already down the slippery slope and well on their way by the time of the Tanaka administration.

As for WWI (1919), I suspect I underestimate the horrors involved. The US reaction, presuming that Wilson dies and Thomas R. Marshall takes over; it is very likely that Pershing will run over him, even more than Pershing ran over Wilson. It could result in the very kind of militarization one sees happen after the Korean War. Especially if Pershing, who had a severe case of swelled head and inflated ego, runs for and wins the presidency in 1922. It is not unreasonable to see the same kind of propaganda apparatus, Wilson invented, being used to sell Pershingism the way it will be used in Europe to sell another kind of militarism, there in the 1920s and 1930s.

I am afraid it is all too plausible that the Americans will become even more jingoistic.

  It a possibility but could a man under who's leadership the American army suffered probably 1-2 million causalities, even without the flu pandemic be a successful Presidential candidate?  Also if the US goes off the rails that quickly its going to be seen as a threat by the allies as well as Japan.  Not to mention that the sort of fascism that infected Germany and Japan would be a total disaster for the US.  The lesser kind that hit Italy, Spain and a number of the smaller European states would be bad enough for them.

[miletus12]

Jan 10, 2022 12:23:30 GMT stevep said:

  It a possibility but could a man under who's leadership the American army suffered probably 1-2 million causalities, even without the flu pandemic be a successful Presidential candidate?  Also if the US goes off the rails that quickly its going to be seen as a threat by the allies as well as Japan.  Not to mention that the sort of fascism that infected Germany and Japan would be a total disaster for the US.  The lesser kind that hit Italy, Spain and a number of the smaller European states would be bad enough for them.

Let us look at Pershing.

Now: here are a few other details not covered.

His troops torpedoed his presidential run.

When World War I ended on November 11, 1918, General John J. “Black Jack” Pershing, leader of the United States forces, had every reason to believe that his next stop would be the White House.

From George Washington in the American Revolution to Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812 and Ulysses S. Grant in the Civil War, that had been a traditional career path for victorious generals. The British king George V reportedly told Pershing in 1919 that, “You, of course, will be the next American president.”

And it looked pretty good for a while. When he returned to the States in September 1919, New York City declared “Pershing Day,” and the general, riding on horseback, led a parade of some 25,000 soldiers down Fifth Avenue, while New Yorkers showered them with flower petals. The New York Tribune estimated the adoring crowd at 1.6 million people.

The following week, in Washington, D.C., a crowd estimated at 400,000 cheered Pershing and his troops as they marched along Pennsylvania Avenue. Upon reaching 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Pershing took a position on the reviewing stand in front of the White House, alongside the then-vice president. The next day, Pershing was invited to address a rare joint session of Congress, which resulted in “an almost continuous din of applause,” as the Washington Herald reported. Congress had already honored Pershing with a promotion to General of the Armies, a rank that had been awarded only once before, to George Washington.

The Pershing bandwagon had started rolling long before that, however. Just two weeks after the signing of the armistice with Germany, Ohio Republicans filed incorporation papers to create the Pershing Republican League and announced plans to launch similar groups in other states. The leader of the organization, former U.S. Senator Charles Dick, admitted to the New York Times that, “We do not know whether General Pershing wants to be President, but we do know there is a great sentiment throughout the nation for him to become President.” Dick added that he was certain that if Pershing were nominated, the general would consider it his duty to accept.

At that point it wasn’t even clear that Pershing was a Republican. One Iowa paper characterized him as “a sort of prize plum for whom both parties are shaking the tree.” One prominent monthly noted that while “many thousands of plain citizens” were talking up a Pershing candidacy, few had “any clue at all as to his party preferences.” It added that, “He is more usually regarded as a Democrat.” Meanwhile, Republicans could take some comfort in knowing that Pershing’s father-in-law and longtime booster, Francis E. Warren, was a former Republican senator from Wyoming.

To some admirers, Pershing’s party affiliation didn’t even matter. Guy E. Campbell, a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania, proposed on the House floor that both parties make Pershing their nominee. “General Pershing has demonstrated himself to be such a commander of men that this country cannot pay too great an honor to him,” Campbell said.

Pershing himself was noncommittal and would remain that way for more than a year. “I have neither inclination nor time to talk politics,” the New York Times quoted him as saying on a December 24, 1919 visit to Lincoln, Nebraska, where he had gone to law school. He remained mum even as his car passed the local Pershing for President headquarters.

Pershing’s silence seemed only to amplify the speculation. “The name of one man is occupying nowadays the most conspicuous corner in the innermost recesses of the sub-conscious minds of politicians with presidential aspirations. It is the name of John J. Pershing,” the Washington Post noted that same month.

It wasn’t until the following April that Pershing made his candidacy official—and then almost reluctantly. Addressing a meeting of the Nebraska Society in Washington, D.C., he said, “my whole life has been devoted to the service of our country, and while in no sense seeking it, I feel that no patriotic American could decline to serve in that high position if called to do so by the people.”

Even though Pershing’s announcement made headlines, it may have been both too little and too late. The Republican convention now was less than two months away, the election less than seven months.

Meanwhile, back in Nebraska, the Pershing Republicans were pushing their man’s candidacy far more aggressively than he seemed willing to do himself. In newspaper ads meant to position Pershing against the crowded field he was facing, they called him “the one candidate who is a business man but not a rich man; a diplomat, but not an ‘internationalist’; a statesman, but not a dreamer; a fighter, but not a militarist; a leader, but not a politician.”

But in mid-April, a nationwide poll by the Literary Digest, showed Pershing running a distant ninth in a field of 14 potential Republican candidates. Perhaps even more discouraging, the top spot in the poll was held by another Army hero: Major General Leonard Wood. A medical doctor by training, Wood had made his name in Cuba during the Spanish-American War, where Teddy Roosevelt, the former Republican president, had served under him. Though Pershing’s accomplishments were more recent, and he might have seemed like the fresher candidate, he and Wood were about the same age; in fact, Wood was born a month earlier.

Part of the reason for Pershing’s poor showing in the polls, some commentators explained, was that as a firm, by-the-book general often described as “unsmiling,” he was respected but far from loved by what might have been his natural constituency: his former troops. They and their families would be making up a substantial chunk of the electorate that November.

A writer for Munsey’s Magazine, a widely read periodical of the day, tried to put it diplomatically. “He has much of the glamour that surrounds a victorious general, he unquestionably possesses high ability, and physically he is a hard muscled veteran of fifty-eight,” the writer noted, starting on the positive side. However, he added, “if what the returning soldiers… say is true, General Pershing is not to the American Expeditionary Forces exactly what Grant was to the Union Army. The admiration is there, but not the measure of affection which the Northern soldiers gave to Grant.”

When the Republican national convention met in Chicago that June, Pershing remained at home. By many accounts he held out hope that the convention would become deadlocked and he would be drafted as its candidate. It did become deadlocked, between General Wood and Illinois Governor Frank Lowden. But instead of turning to Pershing, the Republicans settled on another compromise candidate, Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding (who happened to enjoy the critical financial backing of oilmen). In his authoritative two-volume biography of Pershing, historian Frank E. Vandiver writes that, “hoping for a call to service, [he] heard the news in sadness and some relief.”

There was then some talk that Pershing might have a shot at the Democratic nomination when that party met later in June, but nothing ever came of it. Instead, the Democrats nominated Ohio Governor James M. Cox (with a young Franklin D. Roosevelt for vice president). They lost to Harding and his running mate, Calvin Coolidge, in November.

In his remaining years, Pershing mostly stayed out of politics. He wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning memoir, served on important-sounding committees, and helped design an early version of the interstate highway system.

He died in 1948, at the age of 87. Four years later, in the 1952 election, Americans would give his World War II counterpart, Dwight Eisenhower, the position that Pershing had been denied.

This is the background on Pershing.

He set the tone for American operational art in WWI (Inept.). There was none to be had from him. Insofar as there was any kind of actual thought in the upper level of command about TACTICS, (See Map.), it was mostly frontal assaults of the 1916 style against secondary sector fortified trench lines against Class II German formations. Foch made these arrangements to free up French and British concentrations further north and west, especially the French under Maistre. But notice that the Americans were supposed to be the right hook of a double movement aimed at the railroad near Sedan that supplied Gallwitz? If the Americans got to Sedan, they would split the front that Gallwitz held. That opens an exploit route (seam) for Maistre to the American left, to move on Mezieria, This would crack the whole front apart. Pershing, or rather Liggett bungled the Argonne part of the operation, and it was actually the French who took Sedan instead of American First Army as planned.



If the British Tommy hated "Butcher" Haig, then imagine what the Americans thought of their "overglorified lawyer turned meatcutter". BTW; The Rainbow Division under the temporary command of one "Douglas Macarthur" finally broke through Gallwitz's defenses and opened a route through the Argonne.

Insofar as Pershing had any politics at all, he was of the "progressive wing" of the democratic party. He was not supported by "big business" who were suspicious of his funny ideas about equity and social order. In whatever limited public statements he made, he sounded more like Wilson than anyone else as far as can be judged.

Wilson was and is not a good model for what to expect from Pershing, because Wilson, himself, was a proto-fascist, if something like that existed in 1918.

===========================================================================================

Could America have gone fascist? How much does one know about the Kingfisher?

This man was so dangerous that even FDR was afraid of him. The background on Long was that he was a dictator. Yes, that is correct, in the United States, a politician was able to establish an authoritarian state, Louisiana, that only was released from his grip when he was assassinated.

So, it was and is possible for the Americans to go fascist by 1930.

[Zyobot]

Jan 10, 2022 18:57:54 GMT miletus12 said:

Jan 10, 2022 12:23:30 GMT stevep said:

  It a possibility but could a man under who's leadership the American army suffered probably 1-2 million causalities, even without the flu pandemic be a successful Presidential candidate?  Also if the US goes off the rails that quickly its going to be seen as a threat by the allies as well as Japan.  Not to mention that the sort of fascism that infected Germany and Japan would be a total disaster for the US.  The lesser kind that hit Italy, Spain and a number of the smaller European states would be bad enough for them.

Let us look at Pershing.

Now: here are a few other details not covered.

His troops torpedoed his presidential run.

When World War I ended on November 11, 1918, General John J. “Black Jack” Pershing, leader of the United States forces, had every reason to believe that his next stop would be the White House.

From George Washington in the American Revolution to Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812 and Ulysses S. Grant in the Civil War, that had been a traditional career path for victorious generals. The British king George V reportedly told Pershing in 1919 that, “You, of course, will be the next American president.”

And it looked pretty good for a while. When he returned to the States in September 1919, New York City declared “Pershing Day,” and the general, riding on horseback, led a parade of some 25,000 soldiers down Fifth Avenue, while New Yorkers showered them with flower petals. The New York Tribune estimated the adoring crowd at 1.6 million people.

The following week, in Washington, D.C., a crowd estimated at 400,000 cheered Pershing and his troops as they marched along Pennsylvania Avenue. Upon reaching 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Pershing took a position on the reviewing stand in front of the White House, alongside the then-vice president. The next day, Pershing was invited to address a rare joint session of Congress, which resulted in “an almost continuous din of applause,” as the Washington Herald reported. Congress had already honored Pershing with a promotion to General of the Armies, a rank that had been awarded only once before, to George Washington.

The Pershing bandwagon had started rolling long before that, however. Just two weeks after the signing of the armistice with Germany, Ohio Republicans filed incorporation papers to create the Pershing Republican League and announced plans to launch similar groups in other states. The leader of the organization, former U.S. Senator Charles Dick, admitted to the New York Times that, “We do not know whether General Pershing wants to be President, but we do know there is a great sentiment throughout the nation for him to become President.” Dick added that he was certain that if Pershing were nominated, the general would consider it his duty to accept.

At that point it wasn’t even clear that Pershing was a Republican. One Iowa paper characterized him as “a sort of prize plum for whom both parties are shaking the tree.” One prominent monthly noted that while “many thousands of plain citizens” were talking up a Pershing candidacy, few had “any clue at all as to his party preferences.” It added that, “He is more usually regarded as a Democrat.” Meanwhile, Republicans could take some comfort in knowing that Pershing’s father-in-law and longtime booster, Francis E. Warren, was a former Republican senator from Wyoming.

To some admirers, Pershing’s party affiliation didn’t even matter. Guy E. Campbell, a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania, proposed on the House floor that both parties make Pershing their nominee. “General Pershing has demonstrated himself to be such a commander of men that this country cannot pay too great an honor to him,” Campbell said.

Pershing himself was noncommittal and would remain that way for more than a year. “I have neither inclination nor time to talk politics,” the New York Times quoted him as saying on a December 24, 1919 visit to Lincoln, Nebraska, where he had gone to law school. He remained mum even as his car passed the local Pershing for President headquarters.

Pershing’s silence seemed only to amplify the speculation. “The name of one man is occupying nowadays the most conspicuous corner in the innermost recesses of the sub-conscious minds of politicians with presidential aspirations. It is the name of John J. Pershing,” the Washington Post noted that same month.

It wasn’t until the following April that Pershing made his candidacy official—and then almost reluctantly. Addressing a meeting of the Nebraska Society in Washington, D.C., he said, “my whole life has been devoted to the service of our country, and while in no sense seeking it, I feel that no patriotic American could decline to serve in that high position if called to do so by the people.”

Even though Pershing’s announcement made headlines, it may have been both too little and too late. The Republican convention now was less than two months away, the election less than seven months.

Meanwhile, back in Nebraska, the Pershing Republicans were pushing their man’s candidacy far more aggressively than he seemed willing to do himself. In newspaper ads meant to position Pershing against the crowded field he was facing, they called him “the one candidate who is a business man but not a rich man; a diplomat, but not an ‘internationalist’; a statesman, but not a dreamer; a fighter, but not a militarist; a leader, but not a politician.”

But in mid-April, a nationwide poll by the Literary Digest, showed Pershing running a distant ninth in a field of 14 potential Republican candidates. Perhaps even more discouraging, the top spot in the poll was held by another Army hero: Major General Leonard Wood. A medical doctor by training, Wood had made his name in Cuba during the Spanish-American War, where Teddy Roosevelt, the former Republican president, had served under him. Though Pershing’s accomplishments were more recent, and he might have seemed like the fresher candidate, he and Wood were about the same age; in fact, Wood was born a month earlier.

Part of the reason for Pershing’s poor showing in the polls, some commentators explained, was that as a firm, by-the-book general often described as “unsmiling,” he was respected but far from loved by what might have been his natural constituency: his former troops. They and their families would be making up a substantial chunk of the electorate that November.

A writer for Munsey’s Magazine, a widely read periodical of the day, tried to put it diplomatically. “He has much of the glamour that surrounds a victorious general, he unquestionably possesses high ability, and physically he is a hard muscled veteran of fifty-eight,” the writer noted, starting on the positive side. However, he added, “if what the returning soldiers… say is true, General Pershing is not to the American Expeditionary Forces exactly what Grant was to the Union Army. The admiration is there, but not the measure of affection which the Northern soldiers gave to Grant.”

When the Republican national convention met in Chicago that June, Pershing remained at home. By many accounts he held out hope that the convention would become deadlocked and he would be drafted as its candidate. It did become deadlocked, between General Wood and Illinois Governor Frank Lowden. But instead of turning to Pershing, the Republicans settled on another compromise candidate, Ohio Senator Warren G. Harding (who happened to enjoy the critical financial backing of oilmen). In his authoritative two-volume biography of Pershing, historian Frank E. Vandiver writes that, “hoping for a call to service, [he] heard the news in sadness and some relief.”

There was then some talk that Pershing might have a shot at the Democratic nomination when that party met later in June, but nothing ever came of it. Instead, the Democrats nominated Ohio Governor James M. Cox (with a young Franklin D. Roosevelt for vice president). They lost to Harding and his running mate, Calvin Coolidge, in November.

In his remaining years, Pershing mostly stayed out of politics. He wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning memoir, served on important-sounding committees, and helped design an early version of the interstate highway system.

He died in 1948, at the age of 87. Four years later, in the 1952 election, Americans would give his World War II counterpart, Dwight Eisenhower, the position that Pershing had been denied.

This is the background on Pershing.

He set the tone for American operational art in WWI (Inept.). There was none to be had from him. Insofar as there was any kind of actual thought in the upper level of command about TACTICS, (See Map.), it was mostly frontal assaults of the 1916 style against secondary sector fortified trench lines against Class II German formations. Foch made these arrangements to free up French and British concentrations further north and west, especially the French under Maistre. But notice that the Americans were supposed to be the right hook of a double movement aimed at the railroad near Sedan that supplied Gallwitz? If the Americans got to Sedan, they would split the front that Gallwitz held. That opens an exploit route (seam) for Maistre to the American left, to move on Mezieria, This would crack the whole front apart. Pershing, or rather Liggett bungled the Argonne part of the operation, and it was actually the French who took Sedan instead of American First Army as planned.



If the British Tommy hated "Butcher" Haig, then imagine what the Americans thought of their "overglorified lawyer turned meatcutter". BTW; The Rainbow Division under the temporary command of one "Douglas Macarthur" finally broke through Gallwitz's defenses and opened a route through the Argonne.

Insofar as Pershing had any politics at all, he was of the "progressive wing" of the democratic party. He was not supported by "big business" who were suspicious of his funny ideas about equity and social order. In whatever limited public statements he made, he sounded more like Wilson than anyone else as far as can be judged.

Wilson was and is not a good model for what to expect from Pershing, because Wilson, himself, was a proto-fascist, if something like that existed in 1918.

===========================================================================================

Could America have gone fascist? How much does one know about the Kingfisher?

This man was so dangerous that even FDR was afraid of him. The background on Long was that he was a dictator. Yes, that is correct, in the United States, a politician was able to establish an authoritarian state, Louisiana, that only was released from his grip when he was assassinated.

So, it was and is possible for the Americans to go fascist by 1930.

Okay, interesting ATL scenario, but what does this all mean for ATL reactions to World War II as it unfolded IOTL? Even if further fighting is slated to take place and lots of people are destined to die in it, compared to an even bigger, bloodier, and more global war that would’ve killed maybe sixty million instead, well…

[stevep]

Jan 11, 2022 14:06:35 GMT Zyobot said:

Jan 10, 2022 18:57:54 GMT miletus12 said:

Let us look at Pershing.

Now: here are a few other details not covered.

His troops torpedoed his presidential run.

This is the background on Pershing.

He set the tone for American operational art in WWI (Inept.). There was none to be had from him. Insofar as there was any kind of actual thought in the upper level of command about TACTICS, (See Map.), it was mostly frontal assaults of the 1916 style against secondary sector fortified trench lines against Class II German formations. Foch made these arrangements to free up French and British concentrations further north and west, especially the French under Maistre. But notice that the Americans were supposed to be the right hook of a double movement aimed at the railroad near Sedan that supplied Gallwitz? If the Americans got to Sedan, they would split the front that Gallwitz held. That opens an exploit route (seam) for Maistre to the American left, to move on Mezieria, This would crack the whole front apart. Pershing, or rather Liggett bungled the Argonne part of the operation, and it was actually the French who took Sedan instead of American First Army as planned.



If the British Tommy hated "Butcher" Haig, then imagine what the Americans thought of their "overglorified lawyer turned meatcutter". BTW; The Rainbow Division under the temporary command of one "Douglas Macarthur" finally broke through Gallwitz's defenses and opened a route through the Argonne.

Insofar as Pershing had any politics at all, he was of the "progressive wing" of the democratic party. He was not supported by "big business" who were suspicious of his funny ideas about equity and social order. In whatever limited public statements he made, he sounded more like Wilson than anyone else as far as can be judged.

Wilson was and is not a good model for what to expect from Pershing, because Wilson, himself, was a proto-fascist, if something like that existed in 1918.

===========================================================================================

Could America have gone fascist? How much does one know about the Kingfisher?

This man was so dangerous that even FDR was afraid of him. The background on Long was that he was a dictator. Yes, that is correct, in the United States, a politician was able to establish an authoritarian state, Louisiana, that only was released from his grip when he was assassinated.

So, it was and is possible for the Americans to go fascist by 1930.

Okay, interesting ATL scenario, but what does this all mean for ATL reactions to World War II as it unfolded IOTL? Even if further fighting is slated to take place and lots of people are destined to die in it, compared to an even bigger, bloodier, and more global war that would’ve killed maybe sixty million instead, well…

  Zyobot,

  I think miletus12, was responding to my earlier post doubting that:

a) General Pershing was a likely Presidential candidate in the scenario she proposed, that the war continues into 1919 with far more American deaths in battle.  From the links she posted it sounds like he was distinctly ambivalent about actually standing as President OTL so not sure it would be that different in her proposed TL.

b)  She also mention that the US would be jingoistic enough to attack Japan in ~1930.  I raised doubts about that and think that prompted her arguing a case for Long as a potential fascist leader of the US although given his age I suspect while a possibility it wouldn't occur until the mid or late 30's.  Given that I have seen reference that Long was an ardent isolationist who would have been highly unlikely to pick a fight with Japan.  See Huey_Long_Chaco_War_and_foreign_policy where his isolationism is mentioned and he wanted immediate independent for the Philippines to avoid US possession of it possibly dragging the US into a war.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

Jan 11, 2022 15:00:55 GMT stevep said:

Jan 11, 2022 14:06:35 GMT Zyobot said:

Okay, interesting ATL scenario, but what does this all mean for ATL reactions to World War II as it unfolded IOTL? Even if further fighting is slated to take place and lots of people are destined to die in it, compared to an even bigger, bloodier, and more global war that would’ve killed maybe sixty million instead, well…

  Zyobot ,

  I think miletus12 , was responding to my earlier post doubting that:

a) General Pershing was a likely Presidential candidate in the scenario she proposed, that the war continues into 1919 with far more American deaths in battle.  From the links she posted it sounds like he was distinctly ambivalent about actually standing as President OTL so not sure it would be that different in her proposed TL.

b)  She also mention that the US would be jingoistic enough to attack Japan in ~1930.  I raised doubts about that and think that prompted her arguing a case for Long as a potential fascist leader of the US although given his age I suspect while a possibility it wouldn't occur until the mid or late 30's.  Given that I have seen reference that Long was an ardent isolationist who would have been highly unlikely to pick a fight with Japan.  See Huey_Long_Chaco_War_and_foreign_policy where his isolationism is mentioned and he wanted immediate independent for the Philippines to avoid US possession of it possibly dragging the US into a war.

  Steve

I know.

Was just wondering what Miletus predicts ATL reactions to World War II as it happened will be? Like I said, even if the Great War lasts into 1919 and war with Japan breaks out in the 1930s, that's still not as bad as the brief hiatus and even bigger firestorm we got IOTL.

[miletus12]

Jan 11, 2022 15:43:20 GMT Zyobot said:

Jan 11, 2022 15:00:55 GMT stevep said:

  Zyobot ,

  I think miletus12 , was responding to my earlier post doubting that:

a) General Pershing was a likely Presidential candidate in the scenario she proposed, that the war continues into 1919 with far more American deaths in battle.  From the links she posted it sounds like he was distinctly ambivalent about actually standing as President OTL so not sure it would be that different in her proposed TL.

b)  She also mention that the US would be jingoistic enough to attack Japan in ~1930.  I raised doubts about that and think that prompted her arguing a case for Long as a potential fascist leader of the US although given his age I suspect while a possibility it wouldn't occur until the mid or late 30's.  Given that I have seen reference that Long was an ardent isolationist who would have been highly unlikely to pick a fight with Japan.  See Huey_Long_Chaco_War_and_foreign_policy where his isolationism is mentioned and he wanted immediate independent for the Philippines to avoid US possession of it possibly dragging the US into a war.

  Steve

I know.

Was just wondering what Miletus predicts ATL reactions to World War II as it happened will be? Like I said, even if the Great War lasts into 1919 and war with Japan breaks out in the 1930s, that's still not as bad as the brief hiatus and even bigger firestorm we got IOTL.

I am not convinced that with a lunatic like Stalin in the offing that one avoids WWII. 

And I would point out further that Huey Long is a lot like Mussolini in his activities and opportunism.  He might be "racist" as regards African Americans and Filipinos, but that does not mean he was "isolationist". His racism explains why he wanted to jettison the Philippine Islands and Puerto Rico.  His claim to that isolationist label actually comes from his hatred of Standard Oil, who would not play ball with him as to his financial and political scheming in Louisiana. He was perfectly willing to say he was isolationist in opposition to FDR because he claimed "Standard Oil" dictated US foreign policy and they thus owned Roosevelt.