The Election that Ruined Everything (1912) - Historian Reacts p.2

[@kuramacon]

Debates around alternate history are great because it really forces you to learn and understand our actual history before a debate can take place. Which sounds like a win to me.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

100%

[@elijahbachrach6579]

I think the only value of these hypothetical histories are as powerful rhetorical techniques for describing what DID happen. You can never be sure of what might have been.

[@jasonskeans3327]

You would think that

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

You underestimate the power of idiots to argue about things they know nothing about. 😓

[@mfsalatino]

@@VloggingThroughHistory What if During WW1 the Ottoman remained neutral, Teddy was president until 1912 and Elihu Root was picked by Teddy as his successor.

[@iammrbeat]

If you ever want to react to any other presidential election videos, I may have one or two you could look at... 😏

[@hazardousmaterial5492]

Just one or two, nothing special

[@cawcusviii6595]

mr beat lesss gooo 🐖🐖🐈‍⬛🐖🐈‍⬛🐈🐖🐈🐈

[@brianhall4182]

It's really strange that the 1910's wind up as one of the most defining eras in world history and yet rarely ever get talked about. The way that the world is today can be traced back all the way to WW1. Europe, Russia, the Middle East, everything could look different. I even wonder whether Japan-China would still happen in 1936 if a non-communist united Russia sat right next door.

[@reintaler6355]

Japan's rise of militarism had much more to do with its internal post-WW1 economic decline and social disharmony (exponentially furthered by the great depression ofc) than what their neighbors were up to. The Black Dragon Society were going for their own Lebensraum on the mainland no matter what.

[@redkraken6516]

@@reintaler6355 well, but you can argue, that those disruptive elements in japanise society were all united by ideas of "Total kriek", and that this book could have been not written without severe resourse sortages and a domestic revolution.

[@reintaler6355]

@@redkraken6516 If you mean Erich Ludendoff's Total War published in 1935, I'm not quite sure what it has to do with this video or my argument. Even without the Total War theory, Japan would not have stopped their imperial ambitions.

[@chazchoo99]

@@redkraken6516 I hate to be that guy, but I'm going to be anyway (sorry, not sorry). The German title is "Der totale Krieg" (lit. "The Total War") which would be pronounced [deːɐ̯ toˈtaːlə kʁiːk], or to put it in layman's terms, "dair toe-TALL-uh creek"

[@GiordanDiodato]

I'm not sure if anything would change in the Middle East outside of Israel not being established. I would argue that Central America would not be in turmoil like it is today, though.

[@kyletucker3811]

I had a realization (that I'm not sure whether they'll mention) of something that could have been DRASTICALLY impacted by the war ending early and Wilson not being present. The 1918 flu epidemic is likely not as impactful, because there aren't massive groups of people huddled together in trenches and on trains, as well as it being easier for doctors to travel around and research and develop treatments faster. The economic and political ramifications of that could be very far reaching, perhaps more far reaching than even the war ending early.

[@DasSmach]

It would have changed our view towards illnesses too since the 1918 flu was seen by the public as an extention of WW1, a long timeline of missery and death. With an early war it becomes it's own thing, therefore getting way more attention even in hindsight

[@samr6408]

yes we would have a far larger world and specifically European population because of a less bad Spanish Flu and less deaths because the war would be shorter. All those people that never got to live would be the biggest impact, and their future actions are unpredictable.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

It also wouldn't have been named Spanish as in the real timeline that name came from the spanish press being an exception from censorship as they were not in the war and thus had more civil liberties than the warring parties. Depending on where we first would see a larger outbreak it might be chinese Flu, american Flu or half a dozen other choices, the epidemiological history is still debated...

[@dragon_ninja_2186]

While Wilson isn’t the only reason for all the troubles in the 20th and 21th century, he definitely played a big part. Besides, who wouldn’t want a third term of Theodore Roosevelt?

[@saadsachwani2837]

Wilson lol

[@blauwbeer556]

it would be his second term, not third term.

[@dragon_ninja_2186]

@@blauwbeer556 Well technically he served out the remainder of McKinley’s term and then won four more years. So a term and a half (might as well be two) and in this timeline three.

[@emeraldfinder5]

@@dragon_ninja_2186 well, presidents have term limits, so “third term” wouldn’t really be accurate

[@BigZ282]

@@emeraldfinder5 Not at that point in time they didn't. You're not wrong that it wouldn't have been a third term in the technical sense, as McKinley did serve the first sixth months and some change of his term before he was assassinated, but that really is splitting hairs as Teddy served the vast majority of McKinley's second term and then a full one of his own.

[@ExcretumTaurum]

“Welcome to the third half of our look at the presidency of Woodrow Wilson”

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Using my Yogi Berra math.

[@xbreachedthetosx7591]

Painfully enough the only thing about Wilson that is really taught in schools is the League of Nations due to the United Nations occurring afterward. Then again when covering 1865-Present in a single school year you have to cut out some things. One usually walks away from learning about Wilson feeling neutral-somewhat positive about him given present curriculums just because of only knowing, “League of Nations”.

[@GiordanDiodato]

kinda ironic he founded it yet no one in Congress wanted to be involved. if the US had been involved, it's possible that Hitler wouldn't have risen to power.

[@tabathacarruthers5122]

I only learned he was president during WW1. It's 1770s-present, because usually American history starts with Revolutionary War. They do leave a lot out.

[@backpackerraden6268]

To your question about the moon: I feel like we don't. At least not when we did. Maybe we'd land on the moon in the early 2000s in pursuit of a "eh why not?" sort of deal. I think one of the more interesting aspects would be how it affects the face of aerospace engineering. I feel like the field would be many years further behind and would likely see most of the developments focused on ocean fluid mechanics rather than atmospheric ones. Could change science as we know it.

[@navajoguy8102]

I guess Teddy Roosevelt's idea of intervention seems refreshing, as long as you are not on the receiving end of it. My grandmother had a very "do what they say, or they'll kill us" view of Americans and thats more or less what Roosevelt's legacy was.

[@untruelie2640]

Yes. International bullying, nothing more. I don't see much of a difference to modern US policies.

[@HDreamer]

@@untruelie2640 I guess the difference is, the US doesn't get stuck in an endless Guerilla war, while trying to "nation build"? Not sure.

[@kieranfrancke790]

No lobbyists no polarized country we see today.

[@BoricuaBoy88]

@@kieranfrancke790 Possibly. I would argue that without the bolshevic commies, their influence wouldn't have spread to the west, and the democratic party of today would still be moderate as opposed to radically woke.

[@stephenferguson9756]

Or maybe the communists wouldn't have shown their hand too early in Russia. Which would just allow them to infiltrate and subvert other countries from within without any major resistance established by the fear of communism.

[@PurpleKaf]

Hi from Romania, thank you for the content 🤠

[@JohnnyOlsson]

Thanks for clarifying Roosevelt's motivation for creating a third party. I hadn't realized that Taft got the nomination so much because of the popular vote in states the Republicans weren't going to win anyways and thought Roosevelt was just being stubborn and full of himself. (Which he kind of was, also.) To me, that has been tainting the legacy of what is otherwise one of my absolute favourite historical figures, but now I understand his reasons better. Speaking of being stubborn and full of himself - I think there are some similarities between Wilson and Roosevelt. They ARE both full of themselves and seem to take a "my way or the highway"-approach to things. The difference, however, is that Roosevelt doesn't have this Messiah complex.

[@professorwhat2704]

I found your question about the moon landing to be very interesting, though I think there's a much bigger series of questions regarding space exploration. I think it happens eventually because of humanity's natural curiosity, but how long is it delayed as a result of the U.S. and Soviet Union not being suspicious and fearful and looking for a political advantage? How much does that set back scientific advancement since the space program has contributed so much to that? How much different do our everyday lives look since so many of those advancements impact them? I totally agree on the suggestion that TR might not have died. The book I recommended the other day on the 1920 election dealt with that since TR had been considering another run that year. I've actually given that some thought in the past after reading the book. TR had already basically had 2 terms since he succeeded so early in McKinley's second term. In this alternate timeline, he's elected in 1912. World War I is still active or at least very recently ended, meaning that we're very much in the process of cleaning things up, so I think a run in 1916 is extremely likely, as is a victory, so that gets him to four terms for all intents and purposes. Does that speed up the process of implementing term limits for presidents? If so, FDR couldn't run so many times, and we also likely don't have World War II to end the Great Depression. How does that impact the depression? There are two things I like about these alternate histories. First, if you're going to get something anywhere close to a realistic scenario, you have to understand the history. Secondly, it's just a good mental exercise. Coming up with something reasonable isn't just a matter of making something up. It really pushes the mind.

[@wilhelm_iron2359]

Something nice to get me part way through my drive home after finals

[@angusyang5917]

Californian here, we do indeed have recall elections, the latest one earlier this year to take out Governor Newsom. We've had 55 attempted recalls since 1913, but only one has been successful: 2003, where Gray Davis was recalled and replaced with Arnold Schwarezenegger.

[@sarlude6532]

I love me some alternate history. It's just fascinating to ramble and try to think what could have happened. The only problem for is that I'm left with this feeling that I wish we could live in that alternate world :/

[@mix3k818]

Hello from Poland

[@bgtgigachad7907]

Hey from Greece

[@spyrostrik7934]

Hello fellow Greek

[@jyu467]

A fun piece of trivia is that the high school Dick Grayson (Robin) goes to in the 1966 Batman TV show is named Woodrow Roosevelt. Obviously named after Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Wilson was still a beloved President in the 1960's. It's fair to say his reputation has declined since then.

[@yirash47]

@Bswag Swag Two reasons: One is that Wilson made a lasting impact on US history. It was a bad impact, but an impact nonetheless. Another is that he had a doctorate, and as all serious historians are fellow doctorates or at least sunk heavily into academics, they might be more inclined to look over Wilson's bad deed for an academic fellow. It may sound anti-intellectual of me to say so, but considering all that he achieved, there are no other reasons why he would be rated so highly, let alone be in the top 25 best presidents, in my opinion.

[@ozwolf01]

If Wilson's doctrine shaped much of our history, how would Roosevelt's doctrine differed in the long term? Also think there would still be space exploration and development, just likely slower and not necessarily by the US.

[@averagejoe2798]

Time to watch my favourite history teacher!

[@AhJeezEnt]

Hey I remember mentioning that Amazon trip months ago in the Whatifalthist video lmao. Great video as always tho!

[@jakitron890]

Great vid as always. I appreciate your perspective even if I don't always agree with you

[@pablo2448]

It's amazing how one person and it's actions can define a age.

[@davacxi5301]

It's not a top ten but a reaction that I think you'd really like is the defense of Poland by extra history. That or the Warsaw uprising also by extra history. Top tier videos and I'd love to hear what you have to add to them!

[@undertakernumberone1]

Also about tariffs and taxes: the alcohol/beer tax also payed for a good chunk of the budget, hence why the brewers felt quite safe for a long time in regards of Prohibition. And then... income tax, WW1, anti german sentiement etc. otherwise, i wanna quote myself from the prior video again: please look at Cynical Historians Woodrow WILSON Videos. About Alt-History. I appreciate it at times and on the (german) WOWS Forum I follow (from time to time) an alt history thread where a few users play different countries in an alt history where Wilson's (fitting) 14 Points had been adopted and ended WW1 in 1917 or so. Going through negotations for Naval treaties etc. i think by now they reached the end of the 20's or even the 30's... I don't participate but I did point out to them that the Irish Revolution was still going ot happen since the Easter Rising and the Executions of the leaders all took place before their peace was going to happen. My issue with a good number of alt-history stuff is that it's often not very well thought out and often relying on "common knowledge" like "Nazi Germany wanted to take over the world!" etc. rather than actual plans and so on. Though at the same time I do think that some people go too much up against Alt history by using too much Hindsight knowledge. In modern wargames Napoleon basically always wins at Waterloo. So according to the same people Wellington should've fled the field before Blücher arrived. But that didn't happen. People back then didn't have all the informations we now have from many sources and so going "X couldn't loose. His position was far too strong!" is too narrow minded imho.

[@svenrio8521]

How about a top 10 video of the favorite things you've learned about this year? I remember you said that you never really knew much about Admiral Yi until Extra Credits introduced him to you. Perhaps in the video you can go into more bits of history that you learned after you finished a reaction series?

[@TickLikesBombs]

Good stuff. Now imagine McKinley never gets assassinated lol

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Your commentary really adds a nice extra layer of perspective and extra thought, thanks!

[@scratchindude7777]

What about top 10 things you learned from your reaction videos that you didn't already know? One of the things I love about you and your channel is the fact that you acknowledge that we're all reacting to and learning history together, so I'd love to see what you yourself consider to be your top 10 moments where you learned something new from your reaction videos!

[@silkok6346]

Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't have died in 1919 if he had won the 1912 election and it so stupid that people are not seeing that. I call this always the Napoleon theory bc if napoleon had won the NP wars he would still have died due to cancer in 1821 but if a person dies in our time line bc of overweight but in an alternitive time line he lives more healthier he wouldn' t die because of that and the same is with Teddy. He died in 1919 because he had in 1916 a wound in his leg on safari and it got infected. Eventually he died of that infection slowly in 1919 du a blood cloth in his lung due to the infection. If he had been president he would not have gone on safari and wouldn't had got that wound and infection so he wouldn't have died in 1919

[@AnnieVanAuken]

Excellent insights, especially on if TR hadn't gone to the Amazon. (But what an adventure! Worth a video, perhaps.) Oh the possibilities! No WWII, no Adolf, no A-bomb, no arms race, no current Mexican standoff featuring bristling nukes.. Yet the Great Depression still happens, because what's to prevent hyperinflated stock prices and the eventual readjustment that became Wall St.'s near-collapse, and by extension the prolonged economic downturn that resulted?

[@steveclarke6257]

Chris, you asked would "we" ( the US) have landed on the moon without the cold war.....there is a question to add to that which is "could the US have competed in any without the German scientists and engineers, with their expertise in rockets and fuel".

[@jdotoz]

Don't forget that liquid fuel rocketry got its start in the US. Who knows, with freedom of movement maybe the German scientists and engineers gather here on their own and we get started even sooner.

[@chancellor1055]

I want to say thank you for helping me with history

[@ruthiehenshallfan99]

Wilson is also the subject of one of the most boring movies ever, Wilson (1944), so there's another big point against him. And yes it is played like a hagiography.

[@engagedifferentlywithdave]

I'd be interested in your take on how the 1916 election would have played out in the alternate timeline. Throughout his Presidency, TR had the bully pulpit, but the Republican power structure was not 100% behind him. In fact, he was made VP by the Republican power structure to basically get rid of him and his strong opinions. If the war was not over by 1916 (which would most likely be true assuming a US entrance in 1915), he would be running against the isolationist sentiment as well as many establishment powers in both the Democratic party, his own Republican base, and those crazy Socialists. The US also had a significant German population that might have become edgy as the war got heated, especially with a blustery figure like TR at the helm. In WWII, the German sentiment at home against the war was reduced in the wake of Pearl Harbor and FDR's propaganda machine that painted the Japanese and Nazis as monsters. The sinking of the Lusitania might not have provided the same political and propaganda bonanza in WWI. If TR is defeated or significantly challenged in 1916, either by Wilson, or a Republican upstart, with the war still raging 'over there', that could make an interesting shift in the timeline. Other strong political figures (Winston Churchill, George HW Bush) who provided strong wartime leadership are then ushered out of office when peace arrives. If not in 1916, perhaps 1920 then starts a much different reality than we experienced in our history. Remember, the 1920s were defined by post war angst (and a pandemic), moralism that created prohibition, gangsterism, and unfettered capitalism. In the end, the 'Roaring 20's' led to the Great Depression which ushered in FDR's presidency. Most likely all that shifts significantly with a TR win in 1912, even if he is not around to see it.

[@sumitmegadrive]

Hey Wilson did some good things Here there are .

[@crusader2112]

You almost got me. 😂👍

[@TylerDurden42069]

Based

[@savagedarksider5934]

He rejected Emperor Karl peace offers.

[@crusader2112]

@@savagedarksider5934 Is that good?

[@savagedarksider5934]

@@crusader2112 No it's bad. Emperor Karl wanted to get his country out of the war and reform it but the allied powers rejected all his peace terms. Karl was A better human being than wilson.

[@oliversherman2414]

I find alternate history very interesting. It helps us realise that the decisions made in real life led to our modern world

[@big8dog887]

Further ripple effect: Since the British aren't using their military resources to defend the homeland against Germany in WWII, they can use them to try to keep India and their other territorial possessions. Africa might still be largely colonial.

[@glynquigley7278]

Interesting point. British decolonialisation was mainly driven by a financial inability to maintain the Empire in line with the changing attitudes of the world and rising Nationalism across the Empire. A shorter war would have lessened the financial stresses and if WW II does not happen or is more regional then you may be correct. Certainly they felt a pressure from Presidents from Wilson tight through to Eisenhower to de colonise. Mostly it was ignored but it became more pressing as successive world wars bankrupted and damaged the country. I would say that the British were more pragmatic than many Imperial powers so perhaps there would have been a (much slower) staged de colonisation. The Anglo Irish War of 1918 -1920 was played out to a backdrop of Wilson's 14 points which prevented Britain employing the same tactics against Collins that Collins would use to crush the Anti Treaty party ( mass internment and firing squads)

[@danieln.1034]

The music for the Russian part reminded me of a music video from 11 years ago that you should react to! "Complete History of the Soviet Union, Arranged to the Melody of Tetris"

[@savagedarksider5934]

I hope you do A video on the southern victory series.

[@crusader2112]

Same here 👍

[@jeffhallinan8188]

I understand your logic on the income tax already being in motion; therefore, whom ever became President would have the honor of generations grumbling about them for years to come. I agree the slow starvation of Germany due to the blockage is the major issue to their surrender. But, what was the size of the U.S. Navy in 1915? Would the addition to the U.S. Navy to the British blockade move that timeline up from 1918? Just a thought. Love these alternate histories videos! Great conversation starters.

[@Urlocallordandsavior]

The US Navy in 1915 was pretty sizable, thanks to modernization efforts around the 1880s, after years of Congress refusing to inject money into the navy after the Civil War. I think it was particularly sizable too, probably in part due to Teddy Roosevelt's naval expansion programs during his administration ("Great White Fleet" occurred under his presidency) (Drachinfel has quite a few videos on this). Just scrolling through Wikipedia and you'd see a lot of pre-dreadnought/dreadnought battleships and cruisers being built during this period through to WWI. The USS Arizona, which was built in 1914, also was part of this US Naval shipbuilding program at the turn of the century. Coincidently enough, FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy during this time and was at Arizona's keel laying. Read that in a FDR children's book somewhere ages ago so yeah (I think it was called "Who Was Franklin D. Roosevelt?" or something like that).

[@morganmcallister2001]

But what could the addition of the US Navy do that the British navy hadn't already achieved? The blockade was already in place and largely uncontested (Battle of Heligoland Bight took place in 1914 and essentially granted the UK full control over the waters surrounding Germany). When the blockade is already nearly 100% effective, what more could the US Navy do?

[@jordanazevedo5688]

@@morganmcallister2001 make it 200% effective 😂

[@jackmessick2869]

When TR was President, and having been the Secretary of the Navy for a time under McKinley, he built the Navy to be the second largest fleet in the world. We were probably still up there 16 years later.

[@Urlocallordandsavior]

@@jackmessick2869 Source about the US Navy being the second largest under Roosevelt Sr.?

[@drzarkov39]

If Roosevelt was elected in '12, and WWI ended early, would Poland have been given its autonomy?

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Probably not, but maybe.

[@SteyrR]

I remember, about 20 years ago, when I was in high school, my history teacher said that Woodrow Wilson was his favorite president. For years after that I simply assumed that Wilson was a pretty OK president.

[@jackmessick2869]

@SteyrR His reputation was pretty high 45 years ago when I was in junior high/high school. I think has suffered this century due to reminders that he re-segregated federal offices, put people in jail with no 4th Amendment rights for opposing involvement in WW1 (even just speaking or writing on the subject) and other things (see the Palmer Raids). He was an enemy of conservatives and most people when he raised the income tax from 1 percent on earnings over $3000 in 1913 (top 3 percent of wage earners) to 77 percent as the top tax bracket by 1917. (War doesn't come cheap). Plus the shock of all the deaths in WW1, and the 1920 recession/depression. This is why Warren Harding promised a "return to normalcy."

[@TheIronKnight12]

Yo love these videos man

[@phantomtitan9792]

This was vary fascinating

[@dustinlbarr]

As much as I like Alternate History hub, I thought this was one of their weaker videos, but love your input nonetheless.

[@Thraim.]

I'm down with blaming the guy for everything. *Someone* has to take the blame, am I right?

[@abbfilmann3735]

No, you are not. Blaming everything on one person is extremely simplistic view of history which ignores a lot of aspects like social changes, zeitgeist, economy, continuity etc

[@scottjs5207]

If the Space Race didn't happen, would we really be sending Terabytes of information of the internet? Forget the moon landing, I like being able to buy anything from anywhere, while in the comfort of my own household.

[@TheMightofDab]

There's a lot in the Alternate history video that I wish would have been challenged. The idea that Russia remains vastly behind the west technologically kind of ignores the main reason Germany gave a blank check to Austria backing them up in any conflict; German leaders saw how Russia was industrialising, and felt that if they didn't fight them in 1914, they would never be able to defeat Russia again

[@lobachevscki]

Regarding the close election figures: not much of an American History buff, but you will have to take into account population to see how they compare. Definitely the election you are talking about is not the closes one, but it probably is closer than it looks when population is taken into account.

[@HungNguyen-sy4oz]

I guess for a Vnese and an Asian in general, this does spark a ton of questions about the fate of Indochina, Japan and even Korea.

[@GambinoTheGoat]

26:18 best answer forever

[@Archerfish1977]

If the US entered the war in the summer of 1915, shortly after the Lusitania sinking, then there's a strong possibility of a third option for where the US troops are sent. Bulgaria did not enter the war until late 1915, after witnessing the failure of the Entente forces at Gallipoli, so Serbia is still in the fight. The Austro-Hungarian Army was already stretched thin fighting the Italians, Serbs, and Russians. If you suddenly have a couple hundred thousand fresh American troops joining the Serbs for a hammerblow, it is quite possible that the Austro-Hungarian Army collapses the way it eventually does in late 1918. Plus if Roosevelt or Taft was in the White House when the war began it is likely that the US military would not have been as hamstrung as it was in real life. The Army would have begun training up using data gathered by observers on both sides of the fight, they probably would have started procuring modern weaponry (keeping them from being forced to rely upon second-hand French castoffs), and hopefully the lack of the Wilsonian State Department would have kept us from antagonizing our old ally Pancho Villa to the point that he turns on us.

[@mattstakeontheancients7594]

In this same vein Monseau Z did a alternate history of Stalin stayed in seminary school. Super in depth and really fascinating long video but well worth a watch.

[@crusader2112]

Scar Nicolas video should be watched first though, since Stalin's video is an indirect sequel.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Those are fun lol

[@0th_Law]

Monsieur Z is... significantly more contentious than AHH. Even Whatifalthist is less contentious than Z.

[@mattstakeontheancients7594]

@@crusader2112 true I didn’t and got confused a bit. Thought they were really cool what if scenarios with huge ramifications. Honestly could make an alternative history novel where those 2 scenarios happen. I’d read that

[@crusader2112]

@@0th_Law I still think it would be interesting to watch Monsieur Z, even if he’s um Controversial.

[@jameslars7391]

I do think we go to the moon we might even go sooner while there would be less animosity between the nations to fuel the race that means that there could be more cooperation between nations though that might be wishful thinking on my part.

[@jackmessick2869]

The 16th Amendment (income tax without proportional distribution) allowed tariffs to come down, especially on liquor. This opened the way for the 17th Amendment (Prohibition) 6 years later, since the federal government would have a huge loss in revenue (no more liquor tax money) had the income tax not been made legal again by the 16th Amendment. Income tax without distributing the money from it to states in proportion to that state's population was found to be unconstitutional in a Supreme Court case in the 1890s. Can you imagine the accounting nightmare? Because other tax money can be spent in any proportion in a state. So an income tax had been legal, but the method to spend it was too complicated. As I understand it, Woodrow Wilson went to bed thinking he had lost the 1916 election (since California is on the west coast) against Charles Hughes. Hughes was made out to be sympathetic to communism by the Wilson campaign, so he wasn't a "Red", but he was called a "Parlor Pink." The trip down the River of Doubt started on February 27, 1914. During the trip down the river, Roosevelt suffered a minor leg wound after he jumped into the river to try to prevent two canoes from smashing against the rocks. The flesh wound he received, however, soon gave him tropical fever that resembled the malaria he had contracted while in Cuba fifteen years before. Because the bullet lodged in his chest from the assassination attempt in 1912 was never removed, his health worsened from the infection. This weakened Roosevelt so greatly that six weeks into the adventure, he had to be attended to day and night by the expedition's physician and his son Kermit. By then, he could not walk because of the infection in his injured leg and an infirmity in the other, which was due to a traffic accident a decade earlier. (from Wikipedia). Which reminds me, I had an uncle named Kermit (after Roosevelt's son, the name became popular, especially in Republican Vermont).

[@lenny7822]

16:27 That question sounds like a shower thought lol

[@i8cherrypie2]

To answer your question at 16:28 : No, I don't think so, at least not at the same time as our timeline, maybe much, much later. I would like to think that if there is no WW2, or a much smaller European-like war would to occur, I don't think there would be a moon race due to the technical limitations. Technology in warfare advanced quickly during the two wars: For example, the airplanes of 1914 became much different than the planes in 1918, and the same with 1939 and 1945. I would think that while technology advances, it would be much slower in our timeline without WW2. Plus without WW2 and the Soviet Union, I don't know if someone would invent something like the V-2 rockets, which would then lead to the German scientists developing them to work for NASA and the Soviets which ends up becoming the ICBMs to go into space and the moon. Unless there's some nation that becomes the ideological enemy to the US, I don't see a potential space race and Cold War to develop rocket technology like in our timeline at the same time. Even then, without Wilson, does the US have a foreign policy like in our timeline to have a Cold War with another nation at that time? Probably not. Great video! I really enjoyed it!

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

I agree.

[@pickle4422]

I think Germany becoming a Parliamentary Monarchy or a Republic might be the most possible situation, definitely would lose Alsace-Lorraine, but I’m not entirely sure if they’d lose the Prussian territories in the east, because those were given to Poland to restrict Germany’s manpower and also to give Poland access to the sea, but if Russia still exists and no Poland, they have no need for access to the sea via German territories.

[@TheFrothyBrew]

Since it wasn't explained in the video, maybe you can help me understand something. How did Wilson's 14 Points and the League of Nations lead to Neoliberal colonialism, aka "Spreading Democracy"? In the video, Cody says the League of Nations was an "infamous" idea, but international peacekeeping seems like a great, noble idea IMHO. Is it really Wilson's fault that future American governments chose to pursue vigilante justice? Thanks! Love your content!

[@brandonk.4864]

Yeah the connection is dubious at best

[@travisroaten6061]

He talked about it in part 1

[@crusader2112]

Wilson’s belief make the world “Safe for Democracy” is the justification that America uses throughout most interventions in the Cold War and Post-Cold War especially, along with Removing the Communists of course. Now, I don’t think you can directly Neo-Liberalism to Wilson, but the I would say that Wilsonian Foreign Policy combined with the Neo-Liberal Era (1980s-toPresent) and that’s how you have American Near-Global Hegemony.

[@hayleyversailles6946]

Alt Hist always makes quite a few claims in his conjecture that are rarely given any justification. Wilson is an easy scapegoat for the "moderate" right. Wilson's racist, eugenicist ass isn't my favorite by any means, but I'd never consider placing blame for a whole of world circumstances on the shoulders of any one man, no matter how infamous, much more than an agenda driven project.

[@TaylorPrem]

You should react to alternate history hubs kaiserreich video.

[@aldbgbnkladg]

12:15 I agree. In this alternate history, WWI would be a lot more similar to Prussia-France war of 1870 than WWII. 16:50, to answer your question, I believe France and Germany would be greater power than they are after WWII, because they won't collapse as they did after WWI. So maybe no superpowers, but a lot of powers still in play.

[@Touhou20246]

I feel like that if Wilson was never president racism would be a lot less prevalent than it is in our timeline.

[@jamescameron4735]

Question. If the US somehow never got involved in WW1 at all, do you think the Germans could have held out long enough for, if not a victory, at least a non defeat for Germany?

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

I don't know about anyone else, but I think so yes. Until news that the US was getting involved came, more and more French troops were beginning to mutiny on mass and the British public was getting absolutely sick of everything to do with the war, death and misery. Germany would have time to gather all their forces to the Western Front to stop any further advances, possibly being in no unusual rush for a massive offensive to try and make any sort of progress before the US troops arrived. Without US involvement to pick up Allied morale and throw the Germans into and even greater desperate panic, either Germany makes a few more small gains, stays relatively put, or the end result for both of those eventually, which is a mutual suing for peace in which Germany can't be as severely punished and mutual concessions have to be made on both sides.

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

All other things remaining the same? Yes. I think Germany could have held out for perhaps a white peace.

[@philipbutler6608]

When I was at Michigan State my professors were Pushing Wilson as the father Of Public Administration.

[@bertmustin]

So who runs in 1916 assuming Roosevelt decides not to run for a third term?

[@DasSmach]

I'm still convinced that something like WW2 and the cold war would have happend. Yes the Bolshevicks don't come to power but it was inevitable that some form of socialism appears since events like the great depression would still have hit the world and caused poverty and missery. That would have caused all kinds of extremist uprisings in the world. Maybe the ever revolting french would have tried syndicalism (like in the HoI IV Kaiserreich mod) which could have taken over the west because (maybe) it wouldn't have been some brutal dictatorship but could have been viewed as the next step of democracy. Maybe Roosevelt would have made it possible for unions in the US to exist which could have been a foundation for socialist united states. And some sort of facism was inevitable, since nationalism and authoritarianism and were still very popular and the biggest reason why Hitler came to power was not the fear of Bolshevicks but the great depression. And since WW1 wouldn't have been such a blood bath the reluctance towards going into another war wouldn't have been as high as it was in our timeline.

[@Landsponge99]

Whether or not the Great Depression still happens is debatable. If Roosevelt remains president into 1920 its no guarantee that the bubble that pops and causes the stock market crash of 1929 ever exists. My guess is over time socialism eventually does spread, particularly in the west where in absence of a major ideological conflict, the progressive movement, more or less unhindered by the Red Scare, only gains traction until it is indistinguishable from what we would call socialism.

[@Landsponge99]

As far as fascism in Europe I think it's very unlikely in an alternate Europe with an earlier end to the Great War. Both because like I said the Great Depression isn't a guarantee where likely there is a global trend towards regulation of businesses, and because the kind of conspiracism that drove the Nazi Party is unlikely to target somewhere like France like it did with the USSR.

[@ozzmen4494]

I think there is still a lot of misinformation about Hitlers rise to power outside of germany. First of to the sceneraio I would agree that italian fascism would still rise but I am oppose to the thought that Hitler would rise to power and more specifically be handed power. I can imagine that a shorter war or harder hit germany would result in a very possible socialist government. One scenario is that through harder hit for germany the populace is ultimately more inclined to vote for the uspd (for a socialist union government) as opposed to the spd (social democrats) after the november revolution in real life. For one the real life was close itself as for the other social democrats feared influence or control from the bolshevik government in russia and thus threw a hard campaign against the socialists which is amplified when the spd strongly corporated with old industrial elites as well with military elites in exchange for political support against socialists. In a world with no bolshevik government there is a strong possibility that doesnt happen which would result in a election where the more tired populace vote for the uspd. That would lead into a socialist union state which would implement more and more democratic elements such as the parlament because at the time many socialist argued that a union government could work with a parlamenterian democracy. The second scenario further proves that Hitler wouldnt rise. The socialist still loose but the spd doesnt go after them, incrimante them or alianate them. In our time the Spd as corporated with many old elites who hold many sympathies one group worth of mention are the "Freikorps“ who were a paramilitary group with most of the officers of the previous government and who were very opposed to democracy some being remaining monarchist some eventually become part of the ns and some simply being militarist. They were in a deal charged with combating socialist protests after the election and were also responsible for the murder of two leading politicians (Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht) in exchange for being able to remain, a later deal got them the jurisdiction of the states soldiers who were mostly part of the november revolution resulting in an undemocratized military in the weimar republic. With no bolsheviks as said before that wouldnt happen and the socialist in result doesnt turn very radical and stalinistic. Through election they could (and were) still be in the government implementing socialist ideals which are generally accepted and maybe even holding a majority in a coalition. Here comes the argument against hitler, the militarist elites were a big part of the group who influenced Hindenburg enough to announce Hitler as Chancellor to rein in him, as we know that didnt happen, another point Hitler couldnt then get the political backing he did in real life from many who opposed the existing ones or better yet the point of the great depression. The parties and the populace wouldnt have been as split as in real life and its very probable that the big coalition doesnt fail as they did in real life more so if the socialist party are part of it. In short: Important to know the 1.Revolution wouldnt fail as said in video it didnt fail in real life. 2. Hitler wouldnt rise to power, he was also handed power in real life 3. Socialist wouldnt radicalize

[@DasSmach]

@@ozzmen4494 My argument wasn't that Hitler specifically was inevitable but that there still would be some facist like states in europe. You're right with the popularity of socialists after WW1 and that there was a real possibility of a socialist germany. But some sort of ridacalization was inevitable since many men would have been marked and shellshocked from the war. Mental health wasn't a thing and shellshocked soldiers were shot because the generals thought they were faking. So having a huge portion of the population broken and sending them into a powervacuum won't end in a civil way.

[@ozzmen4494]

@@DasSmach Then I have misunderstood some of your points. My Logic was more focused on Germany and the failure of the weimar republic (as someone who lives and went to school in germany). I still think that the european states who became fascist other than would still be, but I dont think there would be a ww2 as we know it. If the great depression would happen I dont think that shell shocked would radicalize the way they did in our time. To note in Germany the existing social insurance wasnt enough during the great depression and in talks of a unemployment insurance the big coalition failed where after the president Hindenburgs appointed chancellor purposefully worsened conditions to show the us that they cant pay war reperation. Youth and regular unemployment sky rocketted, homelessness, poverty and people living on the streets. Now I used Germany as an example because I know the spefics of them best but I think its a good example for what would happen in other countries. Former Soldiers who were for example shell shocked are pretty easily radicalized and they were in our time and not only soldiers. On another note the political spectrum in germany became more dividing and extreme with the rise of the ns and the former socialist, now communist (kpd) who were alianated from politics before as said. These parties divided more and radicalised more, like somewhere else might happen. Apart from my opinion that any of what I mentioned would happen in this alt time because I imagine Hindenburg not ever becoming President. I think the civil unrest in most of europe would become less politic and more generic or commoners unrest. Some may be still radicalized but I think most would want reform to end their situation. I could imagine situation similar to the US during the great depression. Because with no bolsheviks or Hitler they wouldnt be a fear of some political ideas leaning in either spectrum. My point is the general society during the time would be different for most european countries. People still would radicalize probably but they wouldnt be so cut off from the public which furthers their extremists ideas. More specific point to soldiers and what you mentioned. In Germany I think Soldier Unions would still be a thing so they would have a political voice, another being that most former Generals would not be in power, the one who the soldiers rebelled against. The Backstab Myth would also probably not spread or spread that much. I also could assume the second spanish republic not failing.

[@JMajik24]

I think Communism would still rise, it just wouldn't be Russia. It's not like Lenin was an isolated hipster nerd who was into Karl Marx before it was cool. Marx and Engels' ideas were spread around the world and would have been read and adopted by people suffering under poor conditions and exploitation and fascism. I think potentially places like many countries in Central and South America, maybe Germany, Italy, Cuba, China and other East Asian countries like Vietnam and the Philippines and several places in Africa could have seen Communist revolutions. They might not have achieved Super Power status like the USSR, but I think Communism/Socialism is still a thing in this time line somewhere.

[@jetvash1]

I know that I may have missed the conversation on this, but I think they focused a little too much on Europe. I think most of their conclusions are valid but I think they overlooked the militarism of Japan. After WWI, Wilson tried to expand the Navy along with the other great powers but was stopped by Congress. Theodore Roosevelt on the other would also have looked to expand and modernize the Navy and would have been much more successful. He was Assistant Secretary of the Navy during McKinley's first term. This would have prevented the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922 which was also signed by Japan. Thus allowing Japan to continue its naval expansion and modernization and fueling its desire for self-sufficiency through imperialist expansion. This alternate timeline would set the focus of the next world war in Asia instead of Europe as Japan would seek to expand its borders after failing to gain enough, in their view, in the Treaty of Versailles.

[@StarStabbedMoon]

Conflict in asia with Japan as the agressors was likely unavoidable but it could be argued that Wilson directly led to Japan's Versailles treaty proposals (particularly the racial equality clause) being quashed. With Teddy not caring and even by some accounts being overtly pro-japanese (his interest in the country led him to mediate the end of the russo japanese war), this could have led to Japan feeling much more legitimized on the world stage and even to increased ambivalence among the west towards their conquest in Asia without them being associated with European belligerents (like Germany). This could have led to an asian continent much worse off than it is now, but perhaps less global war if for no other reason than the West might not care. That said, you could see an asia that takes up the mantle of anti-imperialism (other than their own doing) in the vacuum without soviet communism. In that case, you simply get something alot like what China has become today.

[@michaelryvin7308]

End of December you can do top 10 top 10 videos

[@Alec0124]

19:00 wow these sounds really nice, especially recall elections... Maybe one for the president eh?

[@michaelaburns734]

That;s a very good question about if The USSR wasn't a major factor in that timeline. Neil Armstrong would't be sent in space and the same for Yuri. It goes back actually to The French Revolution with Karl and Frederick Manifesto for the French. I highly recommend "The Rise and Fall of Communism" by Archie Brown on that,

[@rotomizer7475]

I wanna see a video on what could’ve happened had the German Empire, Austrian and Ottoman empires won or what would’ve happened had we joined them over Britain and France.

[@Landsponge99]

AltHistoryHub has kind of something like that. Its a summary of a Turtledove series in which the premise is the South winning the Civil War

[@adamjow8405]

It's remarkable how if events of the 1910s went differently, how different today's world would be. Even changing something like WIlson not being elected president would change things massively.

[@samrevlej9331]

It's a very conservative point of view to see an income tax as one of the worst accomplishments of a president. Some might argue that income taxes are better than tariffs on imports that make everything more expensive. Or that an income tax, particularly a progressive one (in a fiscal sense, not a political one) allows for fairer taxation between different socioeconomic strata.

[@cantremember817]

Hey Chris IDK if you’re familiar with the channel “Weird History” but it would be cool to see you react to some of their videos. I feel like you’d enjoy their content

[@mgrzx3367]

Thank you so much for all you do. You don't preach it's cool i'm Athist but woul meet you once. I'm a history junkie Arigatou gozaimasu sense 💘

[@shaunpliva4916]

Could you react to Mr. Beat’s videos about the 1912 and 1916 elections?

[@matthewhaywood7815]

Another good alternative history is if the republican candidate didn't tick off the California gov and gov had enough pull with the state voters to get more of them to vote republican and give the state election to republican and therefore the white house

[@defiantlykante8157]

Hey from New Jersey Not proud of Wilson being our governor

[@crusader2112]

Howdy neighbor. Sincerely, A Pennsylvanian.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Do you know what his policies were as governor then?

[@sikksotoo]

I've been watching a lot of historical and alt history react videos lately and am enjoying your channel a lot. I can't say the same for some others, so I won't. :)

[@Bigrago1]

16:30 I would think we(humans) still would just it would not be motivated by national ideology but more like when nations were building aircraft for the first time. And depending on what happens to Germany in the alternate timeline von Braun would either be making space rockets instead of bombs for Germany, or whichever nation agrees to fund him, so that it could be Germany or anyone that could've gone to the Moon.

[@johnmcmanus2447]

Wouldn't the USA be able to use their army to possibly naval invade Germany, using the combined American/British fleet to maintain naval dominance? Invading in northern Germany would open up a third front, presumably undefeated or lightly defended, to exploit and march to Berlin

[@MasterWooten]

"Nation building", yes, which is what Peace Keeping has become with the inclusion of the three block war concept. the reality is, if you have no real discernable objective for getting in then perhaps you shouldn't get in in the first place.

[@joeldykman7591]

Hitler considered Bolshevism and Capitalism basically two sides of the same coin. A coin of Jewish supremacy, he detested both. National Socialism was Hitler's brand of fascism akin to Lenin's version of Marxism.

[@pewterschmidt23lord99]

You could also argue that hitlers national socialism is also his version of marxism

[@0th_Law]

I actually did some research a couple years back on how much fear of communism affected US Domestic Policy -- specifically, social services & the like -- officially, and from what I found... There wasn't much of that. Not officially, at least. I'd need to find what I wrote again to review the sources & stuff, but yeah.

[@hayleyversailles6946]

I didn't catch the Alt Hist justification for Wilson being responsible for Soviet Totalitarianism, did you?

[@0th_Law]

@@hayleyversailles6946 Basically, WWI changing causes the circumstances surrounding the provisional Russian government to be more successful, leading to the Bolsheviks not rising to power.

[@hayleyversailles6946]

@@0th_Law Lenin and the Bolsheviks would have taken over one way or another. WW1 was just the time a revolution succeeded. They'd had revolutions against Nicholas before 1917. Making the leaps that Wilson is responsible for Bolshevik success, like I said in my first comment, seems pretty agenda-driven

[@0th_Law]

@@hayleyversailles6946 Why are you telling _me_ this? I was just answering your question about how it was justified in the video.

[@hayleyversailles6946]

@@0th_Law Didn't mean anything by it. And thank you for answering the question. I like VTH stuff and Alt Hist too but do find lots of the claims in these things a bit sketchy. People tend to just kind of swallow it for their own confirmation bias. Your comment was an interesting thing to bring up related to the video. That's why I said anything at all

[@kmetcalfe]

What do you think about the theory that Theodore could've ended WW1 through diplomacy, and quickly? Most of those nations fighting in it wanted to win, but understood it had a set outcome that would last years and wipe out millions. Theodore was a skilled diplomat (having won the Nobel Peace Prize for ending a previous war), knew all the European leaders, and they would've been welcoming to the U.S. hosting peace talks due to our initially neutral stance. Or am I only dreaming this is possible, due to TR's love of war?

[@joshpenney808]

You can’t just mention this Amazon trip Teddy went on and not go into detail 🤣

[@cigneyg3637]

damn after watching this Teddy was a S tier president

[@vonx9813]

It's not a VTH video if he doesn't get sidetracked and then puts the intro 10 minutes into the video haha

[@David-fm6go]

16:48 I would say yes bc US economy would still be the largest one in the world as it had been since the 1880s.

[@austinroberts7546]

Hey Chris great video in the last stream you did I can't see my comments or super chats I left for you in live chat when I go back and watch. Do you know what's up with that or not?

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

I’ll check. I can’t see any reason why not. If you were accidentally blocked I wouldn’t be seeing this comment either.

[@austinroberts7546]

@@VloggingThroughHistory hmm that's werid yea hopefully it's nothing to complicated.

[@SiddharthKishan-wo2gg]

Sorry I’m late but at 20:25 I do know that he got a really bad disease from that trip and that most certainly contributed to his health failure and eventual death.

[@Greybeardmedic]

I think its useful to point out that a President can support amendments to the Constitution, but that they have no vote or veto power in its passing. Constitutionally they are strictly observers.

[@richeybaumann1755]

I always hear a lot of people conclude that while the wars were very bad, especially for the Russians, they led to a lot of technological, scientific, and cultural advancement for the victors that would never have happened if the wars had not happened either. Modern computing, space technology, communications, wifi, modern weapons, etc.

[@kingrex1931]

What's not discussed here is what would have happened had Theodore Roosevelt accepted his defeat, not formed a third party and if Taft won in 1912. Let's say Taft wins and acts even handed towards Britain and Germany both. Wilson through the House-Grey memorandum gave the Allies every reason to hold out rather than seek a settled peace with Germany. A settled peace could have avoided the bad outcome of Wilson without having to lose hundreds of thousands of American lives in World War I. This might have also avoided the spread of the Spanish Flu in the United States as well.

[@morganmcallister2001]

"Only him, an intellect, an orator could champion democracy through US foreign policy, but in reality, he was just advancing US interests under another name." But the US had no direct interest in getting involved in WWI. The best counterargument is usually that the US had lent money to the UK, France, and Russia and wanted to make sure they could pay back those loans. It's a rather weak counterargument though as there was no guarantee that the UK and France wouldn't pay back those loans even if Germany had won. Getting repayment from Russia was a lost cause by the time Wilson declared war. Furthermore, very few of the fourteen points can be considered to be the direct interests of the United States and those that are, are primarily trade based. While the Europeans bickered over who got to take what land from the defeated powers, Wilson was trying to reshape the way the world worked without compensation. I'm sorry but this quoted argument falls flat. I do believe that Wilson was genuinely interested in protecting democracy in Europe, even if others believe this was a misguided effort.

[@brandonk.4864]

I agree

[@crusader2112]

I don’t think that quote is meant to mean U.S. Interests in WW1, but rather the idea of U.S. Interests in obtaining a near-Global Hegemony under the guise of “Make the World Safe for Democracy”.

[@redactedredacted4080]

So i just realized there probably no WNT or LNT.

[@Animaster89]

Im somehow getting the feeling he might not like that wilson fella

[@kjv35]

Hi Chris, I wanted to comment on part 1 yesterday but I didn't have time to do so until now. Yesterday you acknowledged AHH's point that the Wilsonian idea of "spreading democracy" around the globe is a thread that runs all the way to the Bush administration. I think this is a very important thing to take away from studying the Wilson administration and I am glad that you were unafraid to bring that up yesterday. This, however, highlights one of the biggest problems I've had with the channel while watching your reaction videos. Let me be clear -- I love your content and you bring a sense of kindness and community to the KZbin platform that is frankly unmatched, and this is particularly impressive given that studying history often sparks debate and argument. That being said, I wish that you would lean into a bit more discussion of current events and politics than you currently do, or at least allow for it to take place in the comments so long as things don't get nasty. I say this because I think the _reason_ we study history is to learn from it and apply the lessons from the past to today's world. Personally, I believe that if we cannot see the present through the lens of history, then we miss out on the most important part of it all. Based everything you've created so far, it is clear that you are fair and open-minded and I hope you will consider my thoughts. Regardless, I will continue to watch your content and support the channel however I can. Thanks, and keep up the great work.

[@0th_Law]

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and those who do are doomed to see other people repeat it.

[@TheFrothyBrew]

Since it wasn't explained in the video, maybe you can help me understand something. How did Wilson's 14 Points and the League of Nations lead to Neoliberal colonialism, aka "Spreading Democracy"? In the video, Cody says the League of Nations was an "infamous" idea, but international peacekeeping seems like a great, noble idea. Is it really Wilson's fault that future American governments chose to play at vigilante justice?

[@ClawedAsh]

The issue with that is that is that, plain and simple, talking about Modern politics will always lead to everything getting nasty. There's no way to do it without it devolving into pointless squabbling