Teddy Roosevelt wins 1912 Presidential Election

[Farnan]

Teddy Roosevelt ran in the 1912 Presidential Election, however lost due to Taft holding the Republican nomination. Now what if Teddy won the Republican primary thus the 1912 Presidential Election?

Now one issue Teddy differed from Wilson greatly is that Teddy advocated US involvement in WWI in the beginning of the war. Knowing that, what difference would US troops have made in 1915 with the Russians still in the war and the French and British holding high morale?

Would the war have ended in 1915? Would the peace have been easier that Versailles? How about Russia, would the Tsardom remain?

[hellheaven1987]

Hmmm, it probably would give a serious blow to Turks in Gallipoli if American could participate the campaign, hence ended Ottoman Empire quicker and provided a good support route to Russia. However, it might force Germany to shift its focus to Eastern Front more, hence increased the speed of collapse of Russia...

[Farnan]

The American troops would most likely land in France, not Gallipoli...

[hellheaven1987]

The American troops would most likely land in France, not Gallipoli...

Depends. Teddy actually had quite a strategical sense and might persude by Great Britain to launch such operations. After all, Gallipoli did offer an opportunity to end the war in far cheaper price of human lives.

[Farnan]

Depends. Teddy actually had quite a strategical sense and might persude by Great Britain to launch such operations. After all, Gallipoli did offer an opportunity to end the war in far cheaper price of human lives.

It offered to knock out Turkey, not end the war.

France was the important front, and Gallipoli was only fought by the British and Commonwealth.

Further how would the fall of the Turks, thus opening up supply routes to Russia, have hastened the fall of the Russians?

[hellheaven1987]

It offered to knock out Turkey, not end the war.

No, Great Britain was so obsessed about Gallipoli because they wanted to march to Germany through Balkan. This idea was especially warmed in British mind during 1915, and largely believe it was a better way to end the war instead playing around in France.

Further how would the fall of the Turks, thus opening up supply routes to Russia, have hastened the fall of the Russians?

Like I say, the unbalance of Western Front with American presence would persuade Germany that it was better to remain defensive on West, hence shift their strategical focus from France to Russia. Even with British support through Black Sea it would take months before those supports show its effect, and even with those support Russian force was still inferior than German force generally.

[Farnan]

No, Great Britain was so obsessed about Gallipoli because they wanted to march to Germany through Balkan. This idea was especially warmed in British mind during 1915, and largely believe it was a better way to end the war instead playing around in France.



Like I say, the unbalance of Western Front with American presence would persuade Germany that it was better to remain defensive on West, hence shift their strategical focus from France to Russia. Even with British support through Black Sea it would take months before those supports show its effect, and even with those support Russian force was still inferior than German force generally.

I highly highly highly doubt this. They would know with American forces that they had to win quick (they knew this in 1917 which was the reason behind the summer offensive). They would not withdraw troops from the West as that would be, quite frankly, insane as it would mean allowing their Western front to collapse. The East was already fairly stable.

[Slaytaninc]

Depends. Teddy actually had quite a strategical sense and might persude by Great Britain to launch such operations. After all, Gallipoli did offer an opportunity to end the war in far cheaper price of human lives.

With good strategical sense, he would know that Gelibolu was a horrible idea.

[hellheaven1987]

With good strategical sense, he would know that Gelibolu was a horrible idea.

Gallipoli was not a bad idea but rather because British constantly gave Turks hints that they were going to do something on there, hence gave Turks a long time to prepare.

[Poach]

Gallipoli was launched in an effort to close the Mesapotamian Theatre, were it successful it may have then been used to expand the European Theatre but that was not the intention.

If the US had joined the war in 1914 we'd probably have won sooner but I can't see them making an appearance in enough force soon enough to prevent the Race to the Sea. As a result, we'd still have a few years of costly, brutal trench warfare.

I can see the Somme never occuring, as US reserves could've been used to shore up Verdun rather than the French asking us to create a diversion for the German reserves.

Thus, my opinion is that with the US in the war at the offset, the course of the war would not have changed greatly but it would have ended sooner, perhaps before the Russian collapse. With no Russian collapse, we may not see a communist revolution at all, or it may atleast happen much later.

What happens then? Hitler may never rise, and if he did and Russia was consumed by civil war in the 20s or 30s, might we see a Nazi Europe today? Hitler would have no Bolshevism to hate. With no Red Army to break the back of the Wermacht, he'd be free to concentrate on the West and D-Day would have been impossible.

[Farnan]

Gallipoli was launched in an effort to close the Mesapotamian Theatre, were it successful it may have then been used to expand the European Theatre but that was not the intention.

If the US had joined the war in 1914 we'd probably have won sooner but I can't see them making an appearance in enough force soon enough to prevent the Race to the Sea. As a result, we'd still have a few years of costly, brutal trench warfare.

I can see the Somme never occuring, as US reserves could've been used to shore up Verdun rather than the French asking us to create a diversion for the German reserves.

Thus, my opinion is that with the US in the war at the offset, the course of the war would not have changed greatly but it would have ended sooner, perhaps before the Russian collapse. With no Russian collapse, we may not see a communist revolution at all, or it may atleast happen much later.

Well the US may have up to 3.6 Million soldiers in Europe by the end of 1915 (by the summer of 1918 we had 10,000 moving in a day). With these numbers, the Allies may have been able to push the Germans in early 1916 and force them back to Germany. With a victory earlier by 2 years we may not give the difficult conditions of the Treaty of Versailles which may prevent a rise of Hitler. I think Russia would still be doomed eventually.

[Poach]

Versailles was ofcourse a prime reason for the rise of Hitler, but might it have been harsh enough anyway? The French were as much angered by the fact that they've had to fight a major war with Germany twice in the last 50 years (from a 1918 standpoint ofcourse) as they were over how brutal the Great War was to their soil.

They'd have wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, and reparations to pay for the damage done (though obviously much reduced) and perhaps some sort of weakening of Germany. Even following a quick and relatively painless war, France would have forged her alliance network around Germany as a foreign policy objective anyway, again for the reason of twice having to fight a major war.

Obviously, we have no way of working out exactly how harsh Versailles would be. It would certainly be much easier on Germany, but easy enough to let Germany ride out the following recession? With no powerful communist forces operating in Germany at the time, Hitler could have perhaps risen in power even faster than he did historically.

[Farnan]

Versailles was ofcourse a prime reason for the rise of Hitler, but might it have been harsh enough anyway? The French were as much angered by the fact that they've had to fight a major war with Germany twice in the last 50 years (from a 1918 standpoint ofcourse) as they were over how brutal the Great War was to their soil.

They'd have wanted Alsace-Lorraine back, and reparations to pay for the damage done (though obviously much reduced) and perhaps some sort of weakening of Germany. Even following a quick and relatively painless war, France would have forged her alliance network around Germany as a foreign policy objective anyway, again for the reason of twice having to fight a major war.

Obviously, we have no way of working out exactly how harsh Versailles would be. It would certainly be much easier on Germany, but easy enough to let Germany ride out the following recession? With no powerful communist forces operating in Germany at the time, Hitler could have perhaps risen in power even faster than he did historically.

And I doubt it would have been as harsh as Versailles, especially as the British wouldn't have wanted as weak of a Germany without having suffered so many troops. Though France would still form an anti-German alliance though and get Alsace-Lorraine. Oh yea, if the war was far less devastating then there would be less of a cause for disarmament.

It was actually the communist forces that helped Hitler rise. One of his main claims was his anti-communist stance which was favored by the middle and upper class Germans.

[Poach]

I forgot about the British (oh the irony) but you're right. Without such a devastating war we'd have likely stuck to our "status quo" policy toward European powers and as such been less inclined to support France in calling for major disarmament.

I should've clarified my meaning about the communists: I didn't mean if communism never existed, as we've already agreed that Russia would fall into revolution soonish anyway, I meant that if the major communist parties in Germany hadn't been as powerful due to the late rising of communism in Europe as a whole. Your point is ofcourse correct that middle class Germans flocked to Hitler to protect their property and wealth from the parties who sought to remove it from them.

[Poach]

Impossible Croccer: the German Home Front was already in an advanced state of collapse by the real war's end, while your strategic arguments are sound I don't think the German nation would be able to last that long, especially with the Grand Fleet reinforced by US Naval units far earlier in the war.

[Dr. Croccer]

Impossible Croccer: the German Home Front was already in an advanced state of collapse by the real war's end, while your strategic arguments are sound I don't think the German nation would be able to last that long, especially with the Grand Fleet reinforced by US Naval units far earlier in the war.

The German home front was exhausted largely because of the offensive effort needed for the German offensives in Italy and France in 1917 and '18. Again, if the German military had taken a purely defensive posture in the West from 1915 onwards, the morale of the German military and people would've been very different by 1918.

The Hindenburg line did not exist in 1915...

I meant, when they had it. And, as Poach said, it's perfectly possible that they would've built one earlier in the fear of the possible manpower the US could muster.

[hellheaven1987]

Impossible Croccer: the German Home Front was already in an advanced state of collapse by the real war's end, while your strategic arguments are sound I don't think the German nation would be able to last that long, especially with the Grand Fleet reinforced by US Naval units far earlier in the war.

It was largely because the exhaust of resource for four years of continuing war, which was worse by the blockade of British. That, however, would not happen in 1915, and throwing a lot of men into enemy MG would not end the war as the case of 1916 shows. Hence the real problem was not how many men American could throw into German MG at once (since they were all be gunned down), but how many fronts Allies could effectively open.

[Poach]

They may, however, have built it earlier if they knew they'd be facing the additional manpower the US would be giving the Entente. They may even have built it across the whole front if they wanted to play defensive.

[Erebus Pasha]

Something that hasn't mean mentioned is US naval support in the Atlantic with possible result of reducing the German U-Boat threat at an earlier date and providing better protection for convoys across the Atlantic.