Teddy win's in 1912

[stevep]

  Been thinking about this for a while and finally triggered into action by the similar question about Hearst becoming US President in this period.

  What if Teddy Roosevelt manages to overcome the reaction of the Republican oligarchs and wins the party nomination.  Given his widespread popularity he's likely to defeat Wilson or whoever else becomes Democratic candidate in 1912.  If so and assuming that WWI starts as OTL, or very similar and then you have something like the Lusitania occurring.  Does it lead to Roosevelt bringing the US into WWI shortly afterwards?

  If so how does the war go and also how is the US affected by a much larger involvement in the conflict.  Assuming a dow say in summer 1915 how quickly will the US army arrived in Europe in numbers and be present on the front line.  How heavy will casualties be and what impact will that be on the 1916 election which would come up that autumn.  Roosevelt won't be eligible to stand again unless he risks breaching the convention on only standing for two terms.  Any idea who the Republican candidate might be and how they might fair?

  How long does the war last with a significant US military in action from somewhere in 1916?  How might it affect the peace terms and could this avoid communism coming to power in Russia?  Might it mean an Hapsburg empire survives?  Could it result in a formal alliance with Britain and France, either during or after the war?

  At sea you might see a USN squadron with the RN in time for a Jutland encounter - although they might have not have too much time to work up with the RN.  This would increase the numerical superiority of the force but could have some issues with co-ordination.

  Any other ideas that come to mind on things that will be affected.

[lordroel]

Jul 1, 2023 13:34:27 GMT stevep said:

  Been thinking about this for a while and finally triggered into action by the similar question about Hearst becoming US President in this period.

  What if Teddy Roosevelt manages to overcome the reaction of the Republican oligarchs and wins the party nomination.  Given his widespread popularity he's likely to defeat Wilson or whoever else becomes Democratic candidate in 1912.  If so and assuming that WWI starts as OTL, or very similar and then you have something like the Lusitania occurring.  Does it lead to Roosevelt bringing the US into WWI shortly afterwards?

  If so how does the war go and also how is the US affected by a much larger involvement in the conflict.  Assuming a dow say in summer 1915 how quickly will the US army arrived in Europe in numbers and be present on the front line.  How heavy will casualties be and what impact will that be on the 1916 election which would come up that autumn.  Roosevelt won't be eligible to stand again unless he risks breaching the convention on only standing for two terms.  Any idea who the Republican candidate might be and how they might fair?

  How long does the war last with a significant US military in action from somewhere in 1916?  How might it affect the peace terms and could this avoid communism coming to power in Russia?  Might it mean an Hapsburg empire survives?  Could it result in a formal alliance with Britain and France, either during or after the war?

  At sea you might see a USN squadron with the RN in time for a Jutland encounter - although they might have not have too much time to work up with the RN.  This would increase the numerical superiority of the force but could have some issues with co-ordination.

  Any other ideas that come to mind on things that will be affected.

Same thing as what you almost wrote 7 years ago stevp: What if: Theodore Roosevelt president in 1912

[raharris1973]

I will have to apologize up front, but Mikestone8 of England pretty much demolishes the two central conceits of this scenario most times it is brought up on AH.com, and was occasionally assisted in this by the late, great David T aka David Tenner. The two hurdles being (a) getting Republican unity behind TR and holding that to majority levels despite bitter divisions of policy and principle as well as personality, in a addition to rising Democratic support (b) the constitutional/political inability of even a somehow elected TR to bring the US into the war through force of will or oratory before public and and the Congress think it is necessary due to a pattern of hostile German actions and American losses; and no the Lusitania is a woefully inadequate casus belli, despite its infamy, it could in no way be the proverbial last straw leading to an American DoW on Germany; in reality, it was more like the ‘first straw’ causing some to question the pro neutrality national consensus and make war against Germany *thinkable*.

[raharris1973]

I considered the possibilities and stretched the precursors to *make* it so TR could plausibly or realistically win in 1912 as a Republican, while having left the Presidency to Taft in the 1908 election.

I had to have Taft get killed off before TR's bitter criticisms of his successor went for public, so sometime in 1910, for this to happen! www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-tr-was-the-republican-nominee-and-elected-potus-in-1912.497723/

I didn't buy Shevek23's counter-arguments in this instance although I often find him fairly persuasive.

A year or two *after* this exchange on the subject from 2020, Mikestone8 also pointed out an inconvenient data point for people wanting to lean on a hypothetical President Theodore Roosevelt in 1915 using the sinking of the Lusitania as a casus belli and rationale for getting the US into WWI. Even in OTL 1915, when Theodore Roosevelt had none of the responsibilities of the office of the President, and complete freedom to be an unaccountable and irresponsible gadfly, he did not call for war with Germany in the near-term aftermath of the the Lusitania sinking.

Actually, if his letters can be believed, he wouldn't have sought a DoW. His immediate response would have been the seizure of German ships currently trapped in US ports, so that in his words "It would not be a question of what we demanded from them, but of what we were prepared to give *back*

Source - Volume 8 of his letters.

[stevep]

  lordroel , raharris1973 ,

  Well

a)  Lordroel - had forgotten that.  Sorry about it.

b)  raharris1973 - well that rather demolishes the argument.  Thanks anyway for letting us know.  Know its something that has often be suggested before but not having been on AH for so long didn't realise how inaccurate the assumptions were.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Jul 2, 2023 13:52:43 GMT stevep said:

  lordroel , raharris1973 ,

  Well

a)  Lordroel - had forgotten that.  Sorry about it.

b)  raharris1973 - well that rather demolishes the argument.  Thanks anyway for letting us know.  Know its something that has often be suggested before but not having been on AH for so long didn't realise how inaccurate the assumptions were.

  Steve

Well the thread is over 7 years old, so no surprise.

[raharris1973]

Jul 2, 2023 13:52:43 GMT stevep said:

b)  raharris1973 - well that rather demolishes the argument.  Thanks anyway for letting us know.  Know its something that has often be suggested before but not having been on AH for so long didn't realise how inaccurate the assumptions were.

Not a problem and don't sweat it.

This scenario is a tempting and recurring one that people bring up all the time for a couple reasons, because (a) it really would be interesting to see the impact of the US going into WWI in 1915*, and (b) Theodore Roosevelt was such a colorful character in personal speech and demeanor. It is simply one of those tempting, oddly attractive AH scenarios that end up overdone, regardless of its unlikelihood or probable unimpressiveness of results, like an Axis Nationalist China^TM, or expansion of French colonialism through the use of the Huguenot^TM minority and them alone, never mind the 85 or 90% of countrymen who were Catholic, or Christianizing the Near, Middle, or Far East, but through Nestorianism^TM instead of one of the churches more popular in the west.


*I think it could be *possible* for America to be brought into WWI in 1915 and make it even plausible, if the author simply does the hard work of changing German provocative behaviors, and possibly capabilities, or pre-war behaviors and action to provoke the United States under any average President, Wilson or otherwise. This could include an earlier, continuing, more devastating, nonstop submarine campaign against all neutral ships that continually sinks American ships in rapid succession- the Germans would probably require greater numbers of more capable subs to do this. Alternatively, if German sabotage attacks against American munitions or supply production for the Entente are conducted in a manner that both causes high American casualties and soon becomes traceable to the German government. The Black Tom explosion of 1916 skirted close to this. It was pretty large scale industrial explosion and inflicted large scale casualties. It could have killed more, and could have damaged the Statue of Liberty but did not. It did not lead to a US declaration of war in 1916 because the US government did not clearly link the cause to German saboteurs instead of the competing theory of a random industrial accident with no foul play until after the US had already declared war for other, unrelated, reasons.

[michelvan]

Under Teddy Roosevelt the USA would have enter may 1915 WW1, after the sinking of RMS Lusitania.
It would change drastic power of Entente on west front.
With more man power and introduction of Browning Automatic 5 Shot-gun in Trench warfare

i think the war could ended in 1917 do US involvement in 1915, maybe even before Germans give train tickets to communists in Switzerland...

On Post war Europe, Roosevelt could have given the precedency to the British Diplomats not the French !
This could have let to complete different Treaty of Versaille and different Europe.
One were Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or Franco never gain power.

[lordroel]

Jul 3, 2023 9:11:55 GMT michelvan said:

Under Teddy Roosevelt the USA would have enter may 1915 WW1, after the sinking of RMS Lusitania.
It would change drastic power of Entente on west front.
With more man power and introduction of Browning Automatic 5 Shot-gun in Trench warfare

i think the war could ended in 1917 do US involvement in 1915, maybe even before Germans give train tickets to communists in Switzerland...

On Post war Europe, Roosevelt could have given the precedency to the British Diplomats not the French !
This could have let to complete different Treaty of Versaille and different Europe.
One were Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or Franco never gain power.

The discussions in the post above shows that is is not that clear of a case what you think might happen.

As raharris1973 made in a good post:

First, Teddy needs Republican unity behind and hold that to majority levels despite bitter divisions of policy and principle as well as personality.

Secondly, even if Teddy gets president, there still needs a Casus belli, i think that is what it is called to get the United States into the war, and even if the United States goes to war, it will take like OTL almost a year before the United States Army, i think can do some useful stuff on the Western Front.

[michelvan]

Jul 3, 2023 15:03:46 GMT lordroel said:

Secondly, even if Teddy gets president, there still needs a Casus belli, i think that is what it is called to get the United States into the war, and even if the United States goes to war, it will take like OTL almost a year before the United States Army, i think can do some useful stuff on the Western Front.

yes, even with may 1915 US Entering the War, they only 300000 service men and drafted around 2,8 million men for American Expeditionary Forces (AEF)
in July 1916 Arrive around 660000 US Soldiers in France, until December 1916 it around 2 million US soldiers.
base on OTL numbers of 1917-1918.

[stevep]

Jul 3, 2023 21:47:49 GMT michelvan said:

Jul 3, 2023 15:03:46 GMT lordroel said:

Secondly, even if Teddy gets president, there still needs a Casus belli, i think that is what it is called to get the United States into the war, and even if the United States goes to war, it will take like OTL almost a year before the United States Army, i think can do some useful stuff on the Western Front.

yes, even with may 1915 US Entering the War, they only 300000 service men and drafted around 2,8 million men for American Expeditionary Forces (AEF)
in July 1916 Arrive around 660000 US Soldiers in France, until December 1916 it around 2 million US soldiers.
base on OTL numbers of 1917-1918.

  michelvan

  Apart from the points raised don't forget that arriving in France didn't mean being ready for combat.  Much of the training took place in France with allied aid and I a lot, possibly more than half of the US forces in France in 1918 didn't actually see service.

  Also there are questions about whether the US could match the OTL performance.  It might go a bit faster because, if Roosevelt did win and then managed to get a quick dow he's likely to have already started some expansion of the army once WWI starts and probably won't have some of the internal conflicts that occurred in Wilson's Presidency - which could well mean Pershing isn't the US army commander.

  However on the other hand the allies are in a weaker position to supply the equipment and experience that they did OTL.  Britain is still getting its own forces up to strength in terms of quality and quantity of artillery and other equipment and neither it nor the French have the doctrinal knowledge of OTL 1918 since its still being learnt and developed.  True the Germans are less advanced as well but their also a lot less worn down and over-extended in 1916 than they were in 1918.  Also there is the issue of getting the men across the Atlantic with the U boats probably being a more substantial threat.  Most will get across but there is likely to be some casualties.

  No doubt if the two issues of a Roosevelt Presidency and a quick dow can be overcome the war will end earlier, quite possibly with less overall casualties, definitely so if either the Bolshevik uprising in Russia or the Flu Pandemic are butterflied and massively so if both were avoided.  However the US losses will be a lot heavier than OTL.   Even in 1918 the 'trained' units that did see action saw heavy losses, in part because of the massive dilution of the professional forces and the problems that caused.  I started this thread to see what the effects might be of such a war, both in Europe and the US but given what I know now it would need a earlier PoD avoiding the bitter hostility between Roosevelt and much of the Republican establishment.

  Steve

[michelvan]

Thanks stevep

Some historians say that teddy Roosevelt want to enter WW1 combat like his Rough Rider (the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry).
But realty of Trench warfare, is not of the Spanish–American War...
The US brought better Equipment like trucks, Artillery and Browning Automatic 5 Shot-gun, but missing good Aircraft, the tank was in development and testing in 1916.

For 1916 we have the battle of Verdun from January to December,
the French and German Generals believe, the enemy army could still be defeated if it suffered a sufficient number of casualties.
this let to French suffered 377,231 and the Germans 337,000 casualties !

And now enter the US AEF the West Front, i bet that General Joffre would see this opportunity to trow US troops in meat grinder called Verdun.
In OTL 1917/1918 The AEF operate in begin under British and French Command on Defence of West Front.

So what if General Joffre use the AEF in offensive in Verdun, with massive US casualties ?
This can have massive outcome for War:

Major political dispute between USA and France about this.
Roosevelt will pull back the AEF units under French command and put them under BEF command.
The French Government replace General Joffre with General Robert Nivelle (know for his disastrous Nivelle offensive in 1917)
What could let to different ending of the battle of Verdun !

And there is 1916 United States presidential election, here Roosevelt could be defeated do high numbers on US casualties !
But this depends on who is Democratic Party nominee ?

[miletus12]

Jul 3, 2023 21:47:49 GMT michelvan said:

Jul 3, 2023 15:03:46 GMT lordroel said:

Secondly, even if Teddy gets president, there still needs a Casus belli, i think that is what it is called to get the United States into the war, and even if the United States goes to war, it will take like OTL almost a year before the United States Army, i think can do some useful stuff on the Western Front.

yes, even with may 1915 US Entering the War, they only 300000 service men and drafted around 2,8 million men for American Expeditionary Forces (AEF)
in July 1916 Arrive around 660000 US Soldiers in France, until December 1916 it around 2 million US soldiers.
base on OTL numbers of 1917-1918.

A year earlier could help. It might have derailed the Bolsheviks.  Don't like the predicted 500,000 -650,000 dead, because I still expect the bad generalship from the American army, despite Teddy trying to slot in better generals, based on his historical sloppy handling of the Filipino-American War.    

[raharris1973]

Jul 6, 2023 1:50:30 GMT miletus12 said:

based on his historical sloppy handling of the Filipino-American War.    

Would love to be educated more on this sometime, regarding command errors on the American side in this fight, and which go up to field level, theater command, and national command.

[miletus12]

Jul 7, 2023 1:26:25 GMT raharris1973 said:

Jul 6, 2023 1:50:30 GMT miletus12 said:

based on his historical sloppy handling of the Filipino-American War.    

Would love to be educated more on this sometime, regarding command errors on the American side in this fight, and which go up to field level, theater command, and national command.

Read the Filipino American War thread. It is a "complex" subject about American WWI leadership. Some of the field-grade Americans like Peyton March demonstrated competence. Others like "Blackjack" Pershing were downright stupid idiots.