<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Teddy Roosevelt And World War I: An Alternative History</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/11/03/archives/roosevelt-1912.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/11/03/archives/roosevelt-1912.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=roosevelt-1912</link>
	<description>Home of The Saturday Evening Post</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:02:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Nilsson</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/11/03/archives/roosevelt-1912.html/comment-page-1#comment-575836</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Nilsson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=75531#comment-575836</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mr. Stone raises a good objection to the idea that America could have entered the war in 1914. I think we should remain skeptical of alternative histories, which often seem based more on fantasy than history. (i.e., the &quot;What-if-Batman-had-been-made-a-Supreme-Court-justice&quot; school of historiography.)
Yes, there would have resistance to entering the war in 1915. The 63rd Congress had a democratic majority in both the House and Senate, and they would certainly have owed Teddy Roosevelt no favors. But we can&#039;t discount his great popular appeal, business interest in war, the widespread hatred for Germany after its Belgian invasion, and the ability of the press to sway public opinion, as they had in the nearly pointless Spanish American war. Congress would probably have given Roosevelt a minimal, token force. But once they had landed and suffered casualties, the country would have been stirred up to a full effort.
I use the number 10 million because that was the military&#039;s original goal. While it took a great deal of effort for President Wilson to deploy 4 million Americans, I think Roosevelt would have started rebuilding the military as soon as he assumed the presidency again, which would have brought America closer to war-readiness.
Roosevelt might not have been able to enter the war until 1916, and America&#039;s earlier appearance on the Western Front might not have changed many of the events. The Russian revolution might still have taken place, but Teddy would have kept American troops in Russia longer than Wilson did, and probably have supported the White Russian counter-revolution.
Well, this is the problem with alternative histories. They can never be pinned down to be proven or disproven.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Stone raises a good objection to the idea that America could have entered the war in 1914. I think we should remain skeptical of alternative histories, which often seem based more on fantasy than history. (i.e., the &#8220;What-if-Batman-had-been-made-a-Supreme-Court-justice&#8221; school of historiography.)<br />
Yes, there would have resistance to entering the war in 1915. The 63rd Congress had a democratic majority in both the House and Senate, and they would certainly have owed Teddy Roosevelt no favors. But we can&#8217;t discount his great popular appeal, business interest in war, the widespread hatred for Germany after its Belgian invasion, and the ability of the press to sway public opinion, as they had in the nearly pointless Spanish American war. Congress would probably have given Roosevelt a minimal, token force. But once they had landed and suffered casualties, the country would have been stirred up to a full effort.<br />
I use the number 10 million because that was the military&#8217;s original goal. While it took a great deal of effort for President Wilson to deploy 4 million Americans, I think Roosevelt would have started rebuilding the military as soon as he assumed the presidency again, which would have brought America closer to war-readiness.<br />
Roosevelt might not have been able to enter the war until 1916, and America&#8217;s earlier appearance on the Western Front might not have changed many of the events. The Russian revolution might still have taken place, but Teddy would have kept American troops in Russia longer than Wilson did, and probably have supported the White Russian counter-revolution.<br />
Well, this is the problem with alternative histories. They can never be pinned down to be proven or disproven.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Stone</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/11/03/archives/roosevelt-1912.html/comment-page-1#comment-528979</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Stone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:52:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=75531#comment-528979</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is no way that TR or any other POTUS could have gone to war in 1915 or even 1916. Congress and the public were nowhere near ready for such a step. They came round only when the Germans started sinking American merchant ships (as distinct from Allied ones which sometimes had Americans aboard)and offerng US territory to the Mexicans. These things didn&#039;t happen until 1917.

Had TR been President (and re-elected in 1916, which isn&#039;t inevitable) he might have brought America into the war two months earlier (going directly to war instead of experimenting with &quot;armed neutrality&quot;) but two years, or even one, is ASB.

So, incidentally, is an AEF of ten million men. OTL it took two years even to get to the one million mark, and there is no reason to think that having a different POTUS could have changed this more than marginally.  Congress would be just as negative about military spending in peacetime, regardless of who was in the White House, so America wouldn&#039;t have been noticeably more prepared, no matter how loudly TR shouted for it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no way that TR or any other POTUS could have gone to war in 1915 or even 1916. Congress and the public were nowhere near ready for such a step. They came round only when the Germans started sinking American merchant ships (as distinct from Allied ones which sometimes had Americans aboard)and offerng US territory to the Mexicans. These things didn&#8217;t happen until 1917.</p>
<p>Had TR been President (and re-elected in 1916, which isn&#8217;t inevitable) he might have brought America into the war two months earlier (going directly to war instead of experimenting with &#8220;armed neutrality&#8221;) but two years, or even one, is ASB.</p>
<p>So, incidentally, is an AEF of ten million men. OTL it took two years even to get to the one million mark, and there is no reason to think that having a different POTUS could have changed this more than marginally.  Congress would be just as negative about military spending in peacetime, regardless of who was in the White House, so America wouldn&#8217;t have been noticeably more prepared, no matter how loudly TR shouted for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: larry leapley</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/11/03/archives/roosevelt-1912.html/comment-page-1#comment-452289</link>
		<dc:creator>larry leapley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=75531#comment-452289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I would agree with most of your conclusion of what might have happens if T.R. had won in 1912,but I would argue that he would not have died in 1918. Being in office he would not have made his disastrous expedition into The Amazon and damaged his health by contracting malaria, his son Quentin may not have been killed in action and left him heartbroken with grief which probably hastened his death in 1919. He may even have become the first 4 term president Roosevelt. In any case history  would have been much different with Teddy in charge rather then Wilson.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would agree with most of your conclusion of what might have happens if T.R. had won in 1912,but I would argue that he would not have died in 1918. Being in office he would not have made his disastrous expedition into The Amazon and damaged his health by contracting malaria, his son Quentin may not have been killed in action and left him heartbroken with grief which probably hastened his death in 1919. He may even have become the first 4 term president Roosevelt. In any case history  would have been much different with Teddy in charge rather then Wilson.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob McGowan</title>
		<link>http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2012/11/03/archives/roosevelt-1912.html/comment-page-1#comment-449817</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob McGowan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2012 03:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/?p=75531#comment-449817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve never contemplated what could have happened if Teddy Roosevelt had been re-elected in 1912. It would have affected the outcome of World War I and Hitler wouldn&#039;t have had his rise to power becoming the largest mass murderer in human history and so much more stated in this feature. Indeed, had the outcome of the 1912 election been different, the remaining decades of the 20th century (and into the 21st) no doubt would have been quite different as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve never contemplated what could have happened if Teddy Roosevelt had been re-elected in 1912. It would have affected the outcome of World War I and Hitler wouldn&#8217;t have had his rise to power becoming the largest mass murderer in human history and so much more stated in this feature. Indeed, had the outcome of the 1912 election been different, the remaining decades of the 20th century (and into the 21st) no doubt would have been quite different as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
