The Election that Ruined Everything (1912) - Historian Reacts p.1

[@valerashan6050]

"I don't want this to turn into an hour long reaction." Chris, you and I have very different desires. Watching your videos every day is always a delight.

[@omalleycaboose5937]

I don't know if Taft could have beat Wilson, but I feel confidence that just Roosevelt would have.

[@SRosenberg203]

Easily, I’d say

[@VlogColton]

Taft could of eaten him though for sure.

[@itsblitz4437]

Taft was known for being corrupt.

[@nickschulte3915]

Roosevelt beating Wilson is such a forgone conclusion that it isn’t even a debate. But Taft would have won easily still.

[@ItsAVolcano]

This wouldn't have been a Taft who had fallen out with Roosevelt, but just an older version of the little humpty dumpty mascot carried on the rough rider's shoulder.😄

[@CodyChepa88]

Boy i wish Taft and Wilson could have boxed it out and met Teddy in the Finals Karate Kid style. Also as someone who does jiu-jitsu and knowing that Teddy did it makes me wish I could have grappled with Teddy. As a martial artist i love that he boxed also wrestled did judo and jiu jitsu. Dude was a different type of man.

[@painvillegaming4119]

He toke a bullet and shake it off This man isn’t a normal man

[@CodyChepa88]

@@painvillegaming4119 seriously. I would have loved to grapple with Theodore for sure . Dude was a different breed of human.

[@danwendt4292]

Remember Teddy fav thing was to beat the hell out of other heads of states

[@danwendt4292]

Cody he was shot in the chest at a political rally he then went on speaking for 4 hours then went to the hospital and he rode like a horse a full grown bull moose and traveled the Amazon River fishing and hunting also made huge federal parks and was in the rough riders in the army had medals and his legendary kindness and kick ass was incredible and hard to find another like him ever a true American original

[@CodyChepa88]

@@danwendt4292 couldn't have said it better then you 👍 Teddy was a hell of a man

[@theodorerooseveltsantlers270]

TR was was the greatest American who ever lived. Just look at what he did from 1890 to 1910. His mental toughness was unparalleled, his wife and mother died on the same day in 1884, his son Quentin died in WWI at the age of 20. And when he died in 1919, Thomas R. Marshall (Wilson's Vice President) said "Death had to take Roosevelt sleeping, for if he had been awake, there would have been a fight."

[@quuirrel19_-sz9pj]

That is an awesome quote, teddy rossevelts really cool

[@UsaSatsui]

I've only ever seen three different opinions on Wilson: 1 - "Holy crap, that guy was terrible" 2 - "Woodrow who?" 3 - "Hey, didn't he date Mrs. Krabappel?"

[@zombieoverlord5173]

My Great Grandma actually believes that he's one of our greatest presidents. It shouldn't shock you to know that she's pretty racist

[@person3070]

thats sad everyone needs to know how horrible Woodrow Wilson is

[@themast6678]

I think it’s also important to note that Kaiser Wilhelm II had a lot of respect for Roosevelt, and the two developed a friendship between the time TR left office and the start of WWI. The Kaiser even invited Roosevelt to help with a review of the German military after the funeral of King Edward VII (an interesting event since most of the future leaders of WWI were part of the procession and it happened only a few years before the start of the war). I personally feel that their relationship might have had more of an effect on the war than the additional troops.

[@blankeon6613]

Have to disagree that Wilsons 14 points after WW1 were positive. Wilson did not at all understand the people, territories, values, history or cultures of the nations of Europe that he was dividing up like a child in a candy store. He was applying his liberal American ideals to countries that were not interested in them. It fostered massive resentment in the losing countries of WW1 such as Austria-Hungary, Germany and gave legitimacy to the Soviet Union... Which would all become a major reasons for WW2.

[@person3070]

how did they give legitimacy to the USSR and how is evacuating Belgium or giving Poland independence bad?

[@koti8849]

@@person3070 democratic poland or any slavic nation is a recipe for disaster

[@cantripleplays]

@@person3070 he gave legitimacy to the ussr by saying that they should let the russians decide there own future (which means don't interfere in the civil war) and that they should invite whatever government that russia had should be invited into the league of nations, which is very much giving legitimacy

[@cantripleplays]

however, the 14 points had little impact on the actual peace deal, Had the 14 points actually been implemented how woodrow wilson wanted it, the resentment would be much less as the germans would've lost less land, wouldn't pay reperations and the rhineland would say militarised. The hungarians would be happier, austria would still be angry though.

[@person3070]

@@cantripleplays He did not keep that promise as in 1918, he invaded Russia to stop the communists from taking power. He failed miserably, because that sums up the Woodrow Wilson administration; a failure

[@BeWe1510]

I totaly agree with you, alternate history is an interresting and helpfull concept. I like to do such thought experiments from time to time. There are proplems though, for example it tends to overrate the alternative scenario because it is pretty easy to say that crisis A, B and C would not have happened but it is much harder to predict which problems we in our timeline never even thought about would have occurred instead. I still enjoy alternate history but it should be taken with a grain of salt

[@emberphoenix5618]

Big fan of your channel. I’ve always been more of a math guy, but now I’m also a big social studies guy (history and geography specially). I wish you could be my teacher at school.

[@Hardrada_1066]

did 4 semesters of electrical enginieering at uni before switching to history last semester - it's never too late :P

[@hwithoutaname3629]

I wouldn’t underestimate the effect the US would have had a few years earlier. Yes, the conditions may have been different, but with a completely different person in charge, it might change how much the US would have committed to the war. At this point though, the line of events is so drastically different that who knows what fatal mistakes or genius ideas could have affected the timeline at this point.

[@tommcdonald1873]

I honestly feel your assessment of Wilson vs Grant is fantastic this is why historians are giving Grant more credit for his accomplishments while realizing Wilson was more of a hack than one had imagined.

[@janehastie3464]

Adolph Hitler and Woodrow Wilson were the two most evil men in the world and many commonalities: both men had no respect for the rights and lives of other people, did not believe in international peace and diplomacy, and believed strong countries should war against small and weak countries. Woodrow Wilson very deliberately provoked Germany entering war with the US by sending military supplies to Great Britain and suspending freedom of the press. He encouraged and participated in serious human rights abuses and murders against African Americans and many other Americans. He ordered a very brutal and unjust military invasion of Haiti in 1915. Likewise, Adolph Hitler also ordered brutal invasion of Poland in 1939.

[@Allaiya.]

Yes, people definitely live in an echo chamber. That's why I appreciate this channel not covering modern politics because it always seems to devolve into arguments.

[@invincor]

Something I remember from Ron Chernow’s biography of Grant was that the “S” the military put in his name was a mystery to him. “I have an S in my name, and I don’t know what it means” or words to that effect.

[@aerialmacaroon6312]

I also have heard that it doesn’t not mean anything and is just a random letter

[@bplup6419]

Now im going to call Ulysses S. Grant "Unconditional HUG Grant"

[@annaaquitaine4225]

Who changed his name because he refused, unconditionally, to be HUG

[@TheMasonK]

YES. One of my favorite Alt History Hub videos!

[@jamesearly8518]

I laughed when you said that the drinking game is to take a drink whenever you say something, and then the narrator of the video says the same thing right afterwards. I would add that we should take a drink whenever you mention Ohio or your ancestors. Also when this KZbinr says "Bridan" rather than "Britain." Non-alcoholic beverages are called for; otherwise, many viewers will die of alcohol poisoning! Seriously, though, this is yet another great video.

[@TravisM.]

I never cared too much for American history given it’s dark past and me being half black, it’s pretty difficult for me to listen to some of the things that went on but your content is so good and you are very objective about things it makes it easier for me to learn. Thanks so much I’ve learned a lot from this channel

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Thanks Trae, glad to have you here.

[@hotwax9376]

Not ALL of American history is dark, even when it comes to race. Yes, American history includes slavery and racial segregation, but it also includes the overcoming of those things. Although I'm white, I remember learning about those things in elementary school and not being ashamed because they happened, but instead proud because our country ended them.

[@igorbednarski8048]

@@hotwax9376 there's no reason to be either ashamed or proud of whatever happened in the past, you didn't do any of that stuff, so it's neither your fault nor your accomplishment.

[@igorbednarski8048]

>I never cared too much for American history given it’s dark past every continent and every country has a 'dark past', people did bad things all over the world and these bad things are especially important for us to study, we should learn from the mistakes of people of the past so that we don't repeat them. >and me being half black, it’s pretty difficult for me to listen to some of the things that went on what difference does it make? I don't have any Jewish or Chinese ancestry that I know of, I can still empathise with the victims of the Holocaust or Unit 731. Not everyone has to be interested in history, but that's a really strange excuse.

[@zakfrisch2997]

I'm half black and that is a really stupid excuse.

[@jyu467]

This election had significant ramifications for the Republican Party moving forward. During TR's presidency, the party was split along progressive and conservative lines, and the two factions often clashed. While Taft was a progressive, he didn't mind making compromises with the conservative wing like TR. Progressives felt alienated by Taft and many left the GOP to join TR's Bull Moose Party which resulted with conservatives in control over the party. Most progressives would later find a home within the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. From the 1930's onward, the Democratic Party was the "liberal" party while the Republican Party was the "conservative" party.

[@a.wenger3964]

A more balanced republican party going into the 20th century sounds good to me

[@thehistory5401]

The Democrats have always been Bourgeois liberals.

[@sebastiansepulveda547]

@@thehistory5401 yes the party that wanted to secede from the union to preserve slavery 60 years before the bourgeois were bourgeois and liberals themselves

[@thehistory5401]

@@sebastiansepulveda547 Just because modern terms were used, does not make it wrong. Bourgeois liberals have always been fine with a second-class.

[@pokemon9573]

@@sebastiansepulveda547 “Party x used to support this! Omg so they must still believe this!” Yeah buddy, I wonder where the voter base for those ideas is from (hint: not the North or West). It is ridiculous to equivocate the modern Democrats to the old Democrat party. It’s obvious to anyone with the mental aptitude of a peanut and above that the parties switched voter bases. It was southerners who supported such policies without second thought.

[@rickybrians5235]

There’s nothing wrong with having a long video when every minute of it is interesting. Great video!

[@startrekforthewin1166]

I've been looking forward to this since I found your channel last month. Don't even have to begin watching to be able to say this is going to be more fantastic content.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Appreciate the confidence. Welcome to the community!

[@scipioafricanus2212]

The issue with the argument that the extra numbers alone would be the decisive factor is that it wouldn't change the overall Allied strategy which would be to strangle the CP into submission economically and logistically. The static nature of the western front limited the tactical flexibility commanders have so the choice the allies still have is 1) frontal assault or 2) sit in and bombard the enemy with artillery. The Allies never began adopting the mobile warfare that the Germans were famous for until 1917 and when it comes to trench assaults, numbers don't really matter that much when you're on the recieving end of machine gun fire, snipers and barbed wire. Even if the Americans deployed on mass in 1914 (which is unrealistic) at best I see their involvement ending the war a year early tops (yes I know Cody says that, I wrote this comment before finishing the video). Unless, and I doubt this would happen because Germany was seen as the primary threat, the Americans went to Italy and fought Austria-Hungary or even the Ottomans. That could have been decisive.

[@mathiasmueller9693]

I also wonder what kind of impact the loss of life would have on the American public's mind. If America declares war in 1915, troops arrive in 16 just to be fed into the lines at Verdun and the Somme. This would have saved countless French and English lives, but at the expense of American ones. I think this would really sour relations between the allies as the Americans view their allies wasting American lives.

[@lesalbro8880]

Cody doesn't mention this but after Verdun Germany decided to go on the defensive on the western front and actually thinned those forces out to create a reserve which was used for offensive action on those other fronts. If the US comes in a couple years earlier this never happens. There's no Caporetto, the joint German/Austro-Hungarian offensives against the Russians and Romania don't happen. Bulgaria likely doesn't join the Central Powers, Serbia remains a thorn in Austria-Hungary's side. Romania almost certainly joins the Entente significantly earlier, Greece likely does as well. Russia is less hard pressed because they have more support against Germany, Austria-Hungary, and probably the Ottomans as well. The upshot of all this is that while Germany likely holds on their fronts, Austria-Hungary does not. AH probably collapses in 1916 in this scenario, and if that happened Germany's collapse wouldn't be that far behind.

[@mathiasmueller9693]

@@lesalbro8880 agree, but thats the same decision they made in 1915. Hold in France, defeat Russia. The Russians are viewed poorly, in both world wars, due to them not conforming to capitalistic view points. Without them, the allies would have lost both wars

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@mathiasmueller9693 agreed.

[@darthcalanil5333]

@@mathiasmueller9693 the 1916 Russian Brusilov offensive almost singlehandedly shattered the Austro-Hungarian army and forced Germany to divert dozens of divisions from the west to the east. If the US joined earlier and forced more German commitment to the west, the Russians might have actually managed to be in a significantly better shape in the east.

[@JohnSmith-wh2ob]

Found your channel today reacting to Ben Shapiro’s President tier ranking now I’m 6 videos in and I’m loving it love history and understanding the truth and the falsehoods throughout centuries of events you got yourself a new subscriber could totally go for hour long videos

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Thank you and welcome to our community!

[@reallyrandom222]

I love seeing the consistent uploads! Thank you for the solid content

[@dshire71]

I can’t say strongly enough how much I enjoy your channel. And I think this might be my favorite episode yet. Can’t wait for part two!

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Thanks Dan! Glad to have you here.

[@HDreamer]

I wouldn't underestimate 1 Million extra troops. Even if flooding the enemy in men doesn't work, it still allows you to rotate the troops you have more, give them time off to rest and stay fresh and more motivated than your enemy. to a degree the French already did that, with circling troops into and out of Verdun. Plus of course the morale effect on the Germans, who were already running around plugging holes in the lines of their Allies. Heck maybe you don't even send the Million men to France, maybe send them to Greece to break the Bulgarians and Ottomans earlier and open up the Southern Border of Austria, which they would never have been able to defend.

[@dinamosflams]

Roosevelt seemed to be a reasonable strategist . I don't see him just putting more forces in the western front. Maybe a reasonable aproach would be to seek for itallian partnership (with the US entering the war this early I doubt Itally would still try to be neutral or have positive relations with a failing power) and use their entrance to separate germany from austria-hungary and complete the encirclement of germany. With so many sides to defend and their flank being taken, germany would have no option but surrender in months after US arrival

[@HDreamer]

@@dinamosflams Italy joined the War in May 1915 and immediately started wasting lives by endless attack on Austrian Mountain lines. They were already in it, even in this alternate timeline. Additional American troops for the Mountain fight at best draws a couple of german Divisions to help Austria.

[@mathiasmueller9693]

The issue with this is the potential of another Gallipoli. The English landed there because the thought it would be easier. Also landing in Greece means more mountain fighting which gives the defenders an even larger advantage.

[@HDreamer]

@@mathiasmueller9693 That is true, however the Salonika front is where the Dominoes of the Central Powers eventually start to fall in the real TL, so this might also be the best place to make it go faster.

[@untruelie2640]

28:25 I have my doubts as well. The main problem wasn't manpower, but logistics and operational exploitation. Again and again, one side would actually punch through the enemy line tactically, but then would be unable to reinforce this sector fast enough to exploit the breakthrough on an operational level. By the time reserves arrived, the enemy had already consolidated the frontline again. I think the real factor to change the equasion in favour of the Entente was the british long-term blockade of Germany.

[@tlpineapple1]

Alot of people seem to br thinking this, but i people seem to be missing t he favt that Germany was able to take a defensive posture in the west allowing them to pull troops frpm the front to support the austro empire. The manpower from the u.s. Joining likely doesmt allow the western front to move, but it would weaken the germans abiliy to support their allies, likely leadimg to major issues for austria. This is also an issue i notice a lot from historians but they often tend to ignore much of the human element of war. The changes in moral for the entant and the central powers, both for the army and the populace would have significant impacts in the war. As well, the u.s. already have expereince in this new type of war, so the introduction of a new nation likely introduces new ideas and strategems. Overall the u.s. introduction into thr war earlier would have had a significant effect. Just basing this off of my military background and not so much my historian background.

[@tlpineapple1]

Also, spellimg mistakes abound. My currrnt device is exceedingly frustrating in its key placement and its "smart correct" keeps changing what buttons im actually hitting. I cant be bothered to fix it giving the tablets refusal to turn off these settings.

[@robbiewalsh6965]

Always happy to see more of Teddy!

[@davidkong2792]

You have educated me thoroughly, I was unaware that the “heroism” and states rights claims were avoidances of slavery. I was taught that there was legitimacy to these claims and I believed them. Thank you, you’ve opened my eyes.

[@cantripleplays]

well the soldiers may have done it for that reason, but the politicians were really doing it for slavery

[@mabonagrininogi3303]

Here in germany we have a Saying: "Jeder Hitlervergleich hinkt schlimmer als Joseph Göbbels" "every Comparrison with Hitler limps harder than Joseph Goebels"

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Did you know MLK Junior his birth name was actually Michael King Junior,and then at a young age his father changed both our names to Martin.

[@dani58141]

An interesting point also to consider if the war ends earlier is if it might have had an effect one the Spanish Flu pandemic. As I understand it that pandemic was empowered by the poor living situation of the soldiers in Europe so an earlier end to the war might have meant that it never reached the levels that it ended up with.

[@NisarKhan-jm1uh]

It was mustard gas that made the 1918 flu the way it was. The exposure of sick soilders by mustard gas is what mutated this bird flu virus into what it is

[@davidwood8730]

Another great video! I think a really interesting question would be how Teddy would have dealt with the allies at the peace conference. And would he have run for a fourth term in 1916.

[@GrimdarkCrusader20th]

I kind of want you to see Cynical Historian's take on Wilson also, those videos are pretty damn hilarious particularly because of the whole WILSONNNNNNN!!! meme

[@almighty5839]

I honestly feel that if TR had just backed down and not let his huge ego take over the United States and the world would possibly have a much more different history then today and sadly Wilson did win as Taft would have been great during the 1912-1916 years.

[@otisdylan9532]

Yes, that's another possible alternative history. Roosevelt loses the Republican nomination, but then endorses Taft instead of running against him, as people that lose their party's nomination almost always do.

[@JohnSmith-wh2ob]

@@otisdylan9532 keyword almost :(

[@GhostRider-sc9vu]

@@JohnSmith-wh2ob I tend to agree it wasn't WWI that caused the problems in the 20s & 30s as much as the 16th, 17th, & 18th amendments, and that under Taft they may not have passed. The 17th being the most egregious. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is quoted as saying that " States Rights died at Appomattox" I also tend to believe while weakened then States Rights or more accurately the 10th amendment died with the 17th when it made Senators just glorified members of the upper House of Representatives rather than the Representatives of their States as the original Constitution had them. The 16th should have been much more restrictive on Congress ability to raise and lower taxes and I personally feel that it should have set the tax rate of Congress as 200% of the highest rate with zero exemptions, and that the people of the district or state they are from must vote on any pay rate by a 50% + 1 vote of "All Eligible Voters" who "pay more in Taxes than they receive from the Government" not just registered voters. The last would apply only to the pay rate of Congress.

[@florianlipp5452]

Internationally, Wilsons most disastrous legacy is his idea of "right of self-determination", which he pushed after world war I. The three ideologies that were the scourge of the 20th century were nationalism, communism and right of self-determination. The first two are obvious. The third one is often overlooked but almost as deadly as the other two. On the surface it sounds great. What could be more just and reasonable than the right of a people to self-determination? But you encounter numerous problems whenever it is applied in reality. Take the dismantling of the Austro-Hungarian Empire: The peoples of this Empire didn't live in distinct regions but were intertwined, often mixed within the same city or village. When one of these peoples exercises the "right to self-determination" it infringes on the right of some other people. After World War I, who could deny the Checks their right to self-determination and their own state? But who could - based on the same theory - deny the Sudeten Germans within the new state of Checoslovakia THEIR right to self-determination? But what then with the Checks who live in the Sudeten area? And on and on. Once you enter this rabbit hole it gets ever more messy. And sooner or later more bloody. All of a sudden, different people who lived in the same neighbourhood for centuries get divided and estranged.

[@davidbacak161]

*Czechs, Czechoslovakia

[@mantapjiwa632]

But that idea also help de-colonialization

[@Manutdfanlol]

dang the last 2 vids were not oversimplified reactions and they both have performed super well so far, keep up with the good work

[@dermotmcquaid3692]

The Bull Moose Party! Now THAT US Political Party sounds DOPE!! Shame Theodore didn't get overwhelming support and win!!!! Good ol' Teddy was a REAL progressive for his time! No wonder he and Taft split the GOP in two, he cared about the American people! We need more leaders like him and his nephew-in-law Franklin

[@WomeESQ]

Im restarting the Bull Moose party as a state rep in Pennsylvania in 2024.

[@northernmetalworker]

@@WomeESQ what's the biggest issue you think the Dems and GOP are ignoring?

[@kristupas_1268]

@@northernmetalworker the lack of ponnys. PONNYS FOR EVERYONE!

[@WomeESQ]

@@northernmetalworker overlooking Labor relations, civil rights like drug criminalization, little to no understanding of how psychology impacts criminality for instance, the legal system is based on judeo christian vengence as justice, it is not integrating what we know about environmental factors and prisons are creating better prisoners not rehabing them psychologically, too much focus on superficial issues like student debt. Median student debt is about 5k, but its the main focus of the current legislature. Ultimately the parties are fighting partisan wars while we all are getting the shaft. One of my first pieces of legislation will be to dissolve political parties in PA, it will not get passed but it might gain momentum for ditching parties legally.

[@juanfranciscovillarroelthu6876]

Teddy is Probably the Best president the US ever had, almost all people of every polítical idiology loves him, the guy would Probably get elected TODAY if he was alive

[@debrickashaw9387]

Learning a lot from your reactions/additions. Rising to be my favourite channel on youtube

[@thesarcasticcontrarian1642]

Woodrow Wilson is one of my favorite presidents to read about. So much to love, hate, and ponder about his role in history. Definitely enjoyed the video!!!!!

[@famguy292]

Wilson: It’s either my way or the highway! Harding: I choose the highway. Wilson: You can’t just- Harding: Sorry, can’t hear you over the sound of my radio.

[@AmFuture]

VTH I get so excited whenever you mention Pancho Villa. I’ve studied Villa’s life ever since I was a kid. Him and the entire Mexican Revolution gets glossed over when people talk about that time period but it really is a fascinating historical time for Mexico.

[@greenknightofwar7024]

This video is where my hatred of Woodrow Wilson spawned from.

[@sheraznisar4833]

Calvin Coolidge was born John Calvin Coolidge Jr but he was always referred to, even by his own family as just Calvin Coolidge

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Yep. See my pinned post.

[@marijakara]

Man, you're such a delight to listen to. I'd love to see a collab with Cody from Alt Hub and an alt hub animated version of you talking about history.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

I’ll have to connect with him sometime. He’s a fellow northern Ohioan I believe.

[@tannerwilson4843]

How has his handling of the Spanish Flu Pandemic not mentioned more? Millions died during that time.

[@sheraznisar4833]

About 50 to 100 million people worldwide

[@big8dog887]

The video isn't over yet, we're still in 1916.

[@piyo744]

because there really wasn't a precedent for the spanish flu, unlike hiv/aids, h1n1, and covid the spanish flu was arguably the first modern global pandemic and therefore there wasn't a great precedent for dealing with it

[@annayosh]

Minor correction: Bill Clinton was William Jefferson Blythe III, not William Jefferson Blythe IV

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

You’re right! Thank you for the correction.

[@sargentocapitao9668]

today is a glorious day, our favourite VTH guy spoke about 90s politics even if just a bit!

[@paulteague6837]

While still a relatively young man, Roosevelt had severe health problems. He died in 1919. Imagine what the pressure of the presidency would have done to him. Had he chosen to declare war after the Lusitania, that would have put the U.S. in the war in May 1915. So troops would arrive in 1916, when Roosevelt ostensibly would have been running for a fourth term. Once the first 100,000 U.S. men had been mowed down by machine guns, Roosevelt's re-election would have been in peril. Unless the war ended before November 1916, Roosevelt certainly would have lost.

[@DanielTompkinsGuitar]

My great grandfather, Frank Tompkins, commanded a squadron that was attacked by Pancho Villa's forces. He led troops down into Mexico chasing Pancho Villa, got wounded, and won a couple of awards. He wrote a book called "Chasing Villa" that I haven't read, but perhaps I will now that you reminded me. I had forgotten about it until you mentioned Pancho Villa. Thanks for the interesting breakdown as always!

[@americanoperator3147]

Holy cow I’ve been waiting for this so badly

[@michaelgreico9630]

Been waiting a long time for this video. Brilliant work as always Chris.

[@jbussa]

Loved the reaction to this. I agreed with allot of what you said about a 1915 USA entry not having quite the same effect as it had in real life. Can't wait for part 2. Oh and... Go Blue!

[@janehrahan5116]

28:03 I agree on the practical level, the issue until late 17 was always frontage, not supplies/men. The real effect would be psychological, germany fought so long and so hard against bad odds because of a combination of the sunk cost fallacy and believing they could still win. The United States joining early would entirely remove the idea they could win, while the sunk cost falacy wasn't quite as bad yet.

[@the_fixer2593]

Me: *watches Alternate History Hubs vid.* "Man... I wish Vlogging through History would watch this." VTH: *Posts this video.* Me: *:D* "A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one."

[@cobra312004]

You're here talking about "I don't know if sheer American numbers would have changed the tide that much" and all I'm seeing is Teddy Roosevelt riding shirtless into machine gun fire with "Winged Hussars" blasting in the background 😎

[@glynquigley7278]

I do love the quote from Foch abuut Wilson's 14 Points "Presdent Wilson insists on his 14 points. Even God contented himself with Ten. Also especially the British argued against the USA joining the war in 1915. They preferred using American industry and being spared Wilson's pontification.

[@michaelaburns734]

USSR not becoming a thing in that timeline? Maybe the 2nd revolution no, but All of the Russian Empire was under feudalism (slow to adapt and not to mention debt and fatigue).

[@PalmelaHanderson]

Interesting little fact re: US involvement in WW1 - While the Civil War was the deadliest conflict in US history in totality, the Great War was even deadlier on a per-day basis. Numbers vary on the number of Civl War dead, but let's put it at 700,000 (some estimates put it at over a million, but it's hard to pin down with complete accuracy). The Civil War went from April 12, 1861- May 9, 1865, so just over 4 years. The United States lost 116,000 men in The Great War, however, they didn't have the numbers to mount any kind of major offensive (and by WW1 standards it wasn't even that major) until the end of May of 1918 at Cantigny on the Somme. World War 1 would end barely over 5 months later. So the US lost, in that ~5.5 months, 116,000 men. That's a little over 21,000 men per month. If you extrapolated that over the span of 4 years, it would be over a million men dead.

[@loler1565v2]

I have to disagree with your claim that USA joining the war sooner does not move some troops from the East to the West and help Russia. While yes Germany still had manpower it was not all mobilized, so mobilizing them sooner also has negative connotations for the Germans. That's less people to work making all the stuff they need for the war, more people they need to equip making the British blockade all the more damaging. More troops in France allows the Allies to more more troops to other fronts like Serbia/Greece, Italy and the middle east greatly increasing the pressure on German allies and increasing the odds of them collapsing

[@RemberReach]

Can you react to "Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920" by Tom Woods please?

[@harryhampton1324]

Crumbs! Imagine the ego of the USA if teddy had saved Europe half way through the 1st world war. I think the way it happened and the lessons we learnt from the 2nd world war helped humanity progress. Love your work, looking forward to your next episode.

[@supernovel7514]

I honestly think if it ended so quickly most europeans wouldn't give America as much credit

[@otisdylan9532]

Under our timeline, the US returned to relative isolation after WW1. A question that I hope is addressed in part 2 is whether that also happens under this alternative timeline.

[@AKAZA-kq8jd]

There are ideas that sound good on paper but history shows us the long term.

[@maximilianolimamoreira5002]

true, on paper, many things seem to work, but in reality, a considerable percentage ends up being just plain utopia

[@jakeharper7047]

I feel that even If America joined the war earlier, the Russian revolution would still happen. Think about it they were still exporting food when there was famine, people dying on the eastern front, and I don’t see why Germany wouldn’t send Lenin back to Russia especially if they were struggling. But feel free to challenge my opinion and explain why.

[@tylerpentecost9669]

I don't know if you see these comments, but I love listening to your perspective on videos that I enjoy. Thank you for adding context to already great content!

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

I read every one. Thank you Tyler!

[@thedarkdragon1437]

30:55 Actually it is tactically a plausible situation. If the germans see this "big daddy US" sending troops to bolster the western front, they have to either respond by taking russia out and then returning to west, or to return west right away, letting the eastern front collapse. Counterpoint: it may have actually played into germans favor. By this time in the war, both sides were at the stale mate and the common tactic was still "run into those machine guns." America increasing the mass that is running to die wouldn't make that much of a difference in the front, but it would make a huge difference back home. 2 ways this could go: 1) Public is outraged and wants US out of the war or president out of office 2) Public supports seeing this through and USA get's it's manufacturing behemot going. But we must remember, Roosevelt was brilliant tactician even for his time. So we can confidently assume, that battles at the western front would suddenly start getting less deadlier for western allies, and a lot more deadlier for the Germans. Extra mass with better tactics would cause germany having to respond to western front, instead of "meh, USA" reaction we would expect.

[@herrkommandant1876]

German plans stated that if the US somehow joined before russia could be taken out, the war was lost. Tactics did evolve by force in 1916, the Somme though a bloodbath did teach tye british army a lot of lessons (except for Haigh since looks like he still lived in 1914) and Verdun was basically a return to mobile warfare, the main reason for the brutality of the battle. In conclusion, the US getting into the war in 1916 would have made a mayor war changing, since Germany would be more likely to get into the negotiations table or getting defeated quicker since the entente manpower lost in 1916 and 17 would have been replaced with American troops just enough to make the planned 1919 offensives happen in 1918 since the Kaiserslacht doesnt happen at all

[@mathiasmueller9693]

@@herrkommandant1876 A counter to that saying is that the Germans did beat the Russians before the US was able to deploy to Europe. My question is what would the Americans do being placed subservient to French and English generals and watch American troops being used as cannon fodder in trench warfare? I dont think this would go over well and might lead to an earlier peace from pressure from the US

[@herrkommandant1876]

@@mathiasmueller9693 thats a possible scenario, though the Russians by 1916 were far from defeated, the Brusilov offensive was close to completely collapse the Austro-Hungarian empire. In the case of the US troops, a different scenario is the one that actually happened, where they are not inmediatly deployed but start they training in France (in mobile warfare for whatever reason) and they act like a independent army from the French and British In any case, the war changes completely in its outcome and maybe even the peace conditions

[@mathiasmueller9693]

@@herrkommandant1876 agree. Worst thing the czar did was take command. Many people claim Russia was backwards militarily, but who wasnt compared to the Germans. Just look at what the did against the Austro-Hungarians

[@herrkommandant1876]

@@mathiasmueller9693 The czar taking comand was merely political and he didnt actually command the army. But i agree that it was a bad decition, it made the responsability of every defeat fall into the czar, weakening his power and support even more than before the war

[@PaulGaither]

Happy Christmas History dude (Chris), from Peru.

[@Ben_not_10]

As much as I know it would’ve taken time for America to mobilize for war in 1915, I think Roosevelt would definitely have been one to be kicking in pants in the war department and in the army’s general staff. A LOT of the issues Pershing had in forming the AEF and why it took as long as it did was because Wilson wasn’t aggressively putting people into positions to get the ball rolling as fast as possible which cost the AEF precious time that Britain and France simply did not have. The American army had leaders who understood the lessons that Grant had learned in the last few months of the Civil war which were very much playing out on the western front. I think Roosevelt would’ve recognized the talent needed to get the American military into shape much faster than Wilson’s administration and would’ve pushed for the right people to be in the right places much sooner.

[@nic1440]

He might be right because a lot of historians think the Great War was really already won for the allies by 1916 so more US troops might have been the extra weight on the scale to end it

[@umikousaka8158]

IMO... Specifically with 1916, should the American arrival draw away enough troops of the Central Powers from the Eastern front, we might see an even more successful Brusilov offensive (it nearly knocked out Austria Hungary in our timeline and was stemmed only with significant German reinforcement from the western front - the opposite outcome to that proposed in this alternate history). This increased success could embolden Romania to join the Allies earlier (IOTL the offensive began in early June, Romania joined in late August... when the offensive was already losing steam) and make a more substantial contribution towards supporting the above offensive. Maybe the Italians could even get some relief and respite over at the Isonzo, if not launch a more effective attack of their own, given how stretched the forces of Germany and Austria-Hungary would likely be at this point. Perhaps the Allies can now roll up the east with all this occurring?

[@Scrapmanluke1]

One thing not really touched on, it was not the million Americans added to the front lines that really changed things, but the US's innovative use of tanks that really broke the stalemate of the trenches and allowed the allies to push forward. If those gains had been made a year or two earlier, it really could have been a much shorter war, which kind of backs up Cody's theory about a shorter war with earlier US involvement.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

The US didn’t invent tanks, the British did. And they weren’t used in large numbers until late in the war. US involvement earlier would have no impact on that. In fact the first major tank attack only took place a few months before the US entered the war, and was initially not very successful.

[@thetemplar8603]

@@VloggingThroughHistory I believe you may have misread his comment. He didn't say the U.S. invented the tank, he mentioned America's innovative use of the tank.

[@evanroper6099]

I would kill to see what people 100 years from now will be saying about modern politics

[@aydenthrilkill2151]

Personally, I think Grant is underrated for practically destroying the klan. Also, you forgot a President who went by their middle name, Steven Grover Cleveland

[@WasThisMail]

There is something cathartic about listening to cypher rant about Wilson

[@johnmiwa6256]

Might as well react to Cipher's video about Wilson and make this a 5-part series.

[@taso56]

If Theodore won a third term the one thing I hope they mention if congress would have limited the terms for president as of what they did with FDR. And when FDR would be president would he would have won or did a big impact on what he would have done in real timeline

[@williamowsley9771]

One problem with all this alternate history thing is we get into a whole lot of what iffn. If the war doesn't end early, does TR run for a 4th term and win or do we get a new President? Does TR live longer than his actual death in January 1919? Are the terms at Versailles demonstrably different?

[@dylangrizzle]

A two parter was probably a good idea. Although I did enjoy the re-upload of the Civil War Oversimplified that was 1+ hour, I did also watch the original though.

[@Venator631]

Wait they had to study the 14 points in high school my high school skipped ww1 entirely and for ww2 only covered the holocaust.

[@bladimor32]

Please do a series on this video by Drachinifel: The Russian 2nd Pacific Squadron - Voyage of the Damned, it is incredible.

[@joeclaridy]

14:53 the answer to your question is yes. 45 had this issue were he had sound policies but his delivery needed a major overhaul.

[@brandonmastin7823]

I was surprised to find out my grandfather was born Howard William Mastin as he went by William Howard by the time I came around, unfortunately i did not find this out intill after he had passed to find out why he changed it. A distant relative of mine had made a famliy tree with his name as his birth name and swears up in down that Howard is the right way however my wife is very into this ancestry stuff and found that he had started going by William at some point in his youth as his naval service forms, both marrige lisences, all his kids birth certificates, death certificate as William Howard.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

My great grandfather was one of 11 sons in his family. 8 of the 11 went by their middle names.

[@nickschulte3915]

3 videos bashing Wilson, instead of 2? YES PLEASE! But in the realm of Alternate History, where TR wins in 1912, I’m still curious about the theory that the war would have been prevented from escalating like it did. We all think of TR as a man that craved war, which he did, and he did scream from the sidelines for Wilson to enter the fray sooner. But he also was capable of creating peace. (He does have both the Medal of Honor and Noble Peace Price). TR was maybe the most popular/well know person in the world, at that time. He knew the different European heads of state, and was governing a country that was still mostly isolationist. TR would have had to have tried to make a peace first, using the threat of the US joining the other side as his Big Stick. And once everyone was actually sat down and talking, not missing dispatches, being on vacation, and every other blunder imaginable, it’s over.

[@benselectionforcasting4172]

Wait. There's a Vlogging through History Drinking game?! I AM IN!

[@Cotswolds1913]

America joining before October 1915 means likely the early joining of Romania, at the very least Bulgarian neutrality (they really were looking to join one of the two sides to make territorial gains), possibly even Greece. In other words the character of the Balkans will be completely different, and tbh....adding a million Americans while the Battle of the Somme is going on, the Germans will def need to transfer troops to the West. But how does Teddy get the US into the war against the wishes of Congress?? That's the real question.

[@JackTHall-ji1qb]

just a correction that i noticed upon rewatching this video, Bill Clinton's name was William Jefferson Blythe III at birth, so it was William Jefferson Blythe the third not the fourth

[@deadrebel8119]

I am from Iran and I have never been waiting this long for something(in Iran you should wait in a queue for almost everything)

[@dutovdevlich3781]

Be interesting to consider how adding in the US Navy early would have changed things. Convoys to Russia through the Baltic with food and supplies????

[@jakethewatersnake]

Wilson's father was a key influencer in the split between the Northern and Southern branches of the Presbyterian Church leading up to the Civil War.

[@Henry_Varro]

30:20 I think we're also forgetting that Germany also starts supporting Austria-Hungry with both manpower, and Resources. The Austro-Hungrian Army notoriously being under equip. Not to mention even though Russia was not seeing great success against German troops, Austro-Hangrian troops were being beaten to a pulp. Especially during The Brusilov Offensive in the latter half of 1916. Not to mention A-H was also fighting a two front war against Italy along with Russia. Granted the Italian campaign did not go well but! With the possibility of Germany's Southern, and Eastern front collapsing, and with the added pressure of another nation entering the war with all the resources an entire continent can muster. I do believe that by late 1916 or sometime in early 1917 it be best to seriously start weighing your options.

[@13StJimmy]

One reason I’ll never consider Taft or Teddy great presidents is because of them we had Wilson win😂

[@captainexcabier]

I'm curious what you would think of an alternate history scenario that saw the Soviet Union being punished for helping to start WWII by invading Poland right along with Nazi Germany by not having Lend-Lease extended to them, and being treated like an enemy state by the Allies.

[@Linesweeper]

Very odd thought here, but America joining early might PROLONG the war. Prussian nobility were notoriously stubborn and would very likely not shift towards surrendering anyhow, but they would see the insanity of trying to bleed the western front to the breaking point. German assaults most likely only happen as counter offensives. Assaults like Verdun do not. German stall tactics in the west lead to lower German casualties earlier in the war. The entente still cannot push the Germans, there weren't any gaps for America to fill, nor could it bring over enough big guns to make a difference. The big question mark might be the Ottomans, had American troops been flooded in to help break them.

[@arcanistnpc4751]

I love that picture of Clemenceau just not looking at Wilson. On the other hand, I think he would have gotten along fairly well with Roosevelt. They had very similar personalities (and a definite love for glorious mustaches)

[@DVine13]

@VTH, do a video on Wilson’s 14 points because I refuse to open another U.S. history book. Thanks.

[@bertmustin]

I can't complain about the U.S. troops not seeing combat until the summer of 1918. Even in that short period the U.S. saw about 117,000 deaths.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

About 53,000 combat deaths, the rest were disease. Most of the combat deaths happened in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in Sept-Oct 1918

[@bertmustin]

@@VloggingThroughHistory whatever the cause of death just the thought of the u.s. fighting one or even two years sooner gives me a bad feeling.

[@SLACKPLAN9]

La Posta, the Mexican restaurant in the Mesilla part of Las Cruces is in the building that was at one time, the HQ of the US/Mexican appointed Viceroy of the region, as well as the HQ where Pershing prepared for his Poncho Villa campaign into Mexico. They make GREAT pasole.

[@kennym.4664]

I don't know if others feel the same way, but if a video like this required an hour or more to cover in its entirety, I wouldn't have a problem with that. This isn't the first time I've heard you talk about a video going for an hour or more as if it's a bad thing. I think you can break that 'rule' and not lose your audience. Just tossing that thought out there.

[@JaredPresleyExperience]

I'm from Cincinnati (Tafts hometown) and always curious what a second Taft term would be like. A professor of mine years ago joked that Teddy Roosevelts biggest mistake may have been running as an independent and giving Wilson the election. Taft wasn't perfect but I feel he would have been better than Wilson during that time

[@Perfection645]

There also a scary outcome, going into ww1 earlier and ending it earlier the American public may end up being strongly against ever going into Europe to fight a war. I know there was a big push for isolationism during FDR but if the public saw the war go faster and huge casualties, this may strengthen the American public against ever going back to Europe.

[@abdullahahmad2012]

Lol I literally started watching yesterday's video about Woodrow Wilson and this vids notification comes up