Charles Evans Hughes and the First World War

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Suppose Charles Evans Hughes is elected 29th President of the United States in November 1916, defeating incumbent President Woodrow Wilson.

How would he have handled the First World War? Would Hughes have led the United States into War and consequently, would the Treaty of Versailles have ever been signed?

Discuss.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the time Hughes took office on March 4, 1917, the events that led the United States to declare war on Germany had already been set in motion for the most part. The only way I can see the United States sitting out the war would be if there was a butterfly that caused the Zimmerman Telegram to either be not sent, or sent via alternate means that did not cause a British interception of it .  Given that the Democrats had run on a peace plank, without the telegram, the Democrat controlled Congress might well have objected to declaring war if asked to by the "war-monger" Hughes if there was no telegram.

The chances of that butterfly happening are remote.  The Germans thought they were using secure ciphers and the best possible means of transmission under the circumstances.  So in all probability the United States arms its merchant ships on schedule and begins mobilization, though the actual date of declaring war is likely later.  There is also likely to be greater resistance to instituting a draft. The Selective Service Act of 1917 initially limited the draft to raising four divisions.  In this timeline, I doubt if the draft will be expanded as much as it was.  Thus, I see a reduced role for the United States in the Great War, and a later date for the Armistice.  Also, with a smaller U.S. Army, no American troops are sent to either Archangel or Siberia in 1918.

Without the prospect of large numbers of American troops being committed in 1919, the Armistice is no where near as one-sided as it was.  The Germans are still as war weary, but they aren't as hopeless.  Germany loses its overseas colonies as well as Alsace-Lorraine, but might well hold on to its newly established client kingdoms in the east.   There certainly would be no Polish Corridor.  Reparations are set at a lower level and Germany is not demilitarized.  Britain and France are simply too war weary to enforce a harsh peace without the prospect of lots of American troops to make the Germans acquiesce to it.

[Bo]

Yes, Hughes would have still entered WWI at about the same time. The war would ahve ended roughly as in RL as well. As for the Treaty of Versailles, Hughes would successfully push through ratification with some amendments added to it, and the Treaty would contain less reparations for Germany than it did in RL.

[Californiadreaming]

In this timeline, I doubt if the draft will be expanded as much as it was.

Why exactly do you say that? Because President Hughes would have wanted to avoid being seen as a warmonger?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I thought Hughes ran as the anti-war candidate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In this timeline, I doubt if the draft will be expanded as much as it was.

Why exactly do you say that? Because President Hughes would have wanted to avoid being seen as a warmonger?

The draft was controversial. Canada didn't introduce it until August 1917, Britain didn't until January 1916, and Ireland in 1918. Australia only used conscripted troops within Australia during WW I.  Our own experience with the draft in the Civil War had been very problematic. Under a president not as eager to impose himself on the world stage as Wilson was, I don't see Hughes turning to the draft as soon as Wilson did. Hughes would have focused on building up the Navy, especially its ASW capability rather than sending troops to be ground up in France.

[Californiadreaming]

In this timeline, I doubt if the draft will be expanded as much as it was.

Why exactly do you say that? Because President Hughes would have wanted to avoid being seen as a warmonger?

The draft was controversial. Canada didn't introduce it until August 1917, Britain didn't until January 1916, and Ireland in 1918. Australia only used conscripted troops within Australia during WW I.  Our own experience with the draft in the Civil War had been very problematic. Under a president not as eager to impose himself on the world stage as Wilson was, I don't see Hughes turning to the draft as soon as Wilson did. Hughes would have focused on building up the Navy, especially its ASW capability rather than sending troops to be ground up in France.

Couldn't a President Hughes have still eventually implemented the draft, though? Indeed, not as soon as Wilson, but sometime later?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In this timeline, I doubt if the draft will be expanded as much as it was.

Why exactly do you say that? Because President Hughes would have wanted to avoid being seen as a warmonger?

The draft was controversial. Canada didn't introduce it until August 1917, Britain didn't until January 1916, and Ireland in 1918. Australia only used conscripted troops within Australia during WW I.  Our own experience with the draft in the Civil War had been very problematic. Under a president not as eager to impose himself on the world stage as Wilson was, I don't see Hughes turning to the draft as soon as Wilson did. Hughes would have focused on building up the Navy, especially its ASW capability rather than sending troops to be ground up in France.

Couldn't a President Hughes have still eventually implemented the draft, though? Indeed, not as soon as Wilson, but sometime later?

Possibly, but probably not in time for the Allies to go on the offensive in 1918. If the Germans have time to consolidate their gains in the east and begin to get materiel from it, then even if Hughes ramps up the draft, a 1919 armistice is likely not as harsh as the 1918 one was. There's also the variable that without any noteworthy success, the mid-term election of 1918 will see war policy as a major issue, likely leading to no change in the draft until after the election.

[Kingpoleon]

By the time Hughes took office on March 4, 1917, the events that led the United States to declare war on Germany had already been set in motion for the most part. The only way I can see the United States sitting out the war would be if there was a butterfly that caused the Zimmerman Telegram to either be not sent, or sent via alternate means that did not cause a British interception of it .  Given that the Democrats had run on a peace plank, without the telegram, the Democrat controlled Congress might well have objected to declaring war if asked to by the "war-monger" Hughes if there was no telegram.

The chances of that butterfly happening are remote.  The Germans thought they were using secure ciphers and the best possible means of transmission under the circumstances.  So in all probability the United States arms its merchant ships on schedule and begins mobilization, though the actual date of declaring war is likely later.  There is also likely to be greater resistance to instituting a draft. The Selective Service Act of 1917 initially limited the draft to raising four divisions.  In this timeline, I doubt if the draft will be expanded as much as it was.  Thus, I see a reduced role for the United States in the Great War, and a later date for the Armistice.  Also, with a smaller U.S. Army, no American troops are sent to either Archangel or Siberia in 1918.

Without the prospect of large numbers of American troops being committed in 1919, the Armistice is no where near as one-sided as it was.  The Germans are still as war weary, but they aren't as hopeless.  Germany loses its overseas colonies as well as Alsace-Lorraine, but might well hold on to its newly established client kingdoms in the east.   There certainly would be no Polish Corridor.  Reparations are set at a lower level and Germany is not demilitarized.  Britain and France are simply too war weary to enforce a harsh peace without the prospect of lots of American troops to make the Germans acquiesce to it.

I agree with your assessment. Ideally Wilhelm II would give up his throne to his son. Hopefully there is no rise of nationalism in Germany, though there might be more of one in France, the Soviet Union, and Japan.

[Californiadreaming]

In this timeline, I doubt if the draft will be expanded as much as it was.

Why exactly do you say that? Because President Hughes would have wanted to avoid being seen as a warmonger?

The draft was controversial. Canada didn't introduce it until August 1917, Britain didn't until January 1916, and Ireland in 1918. Australia only used conscripted troops within Australia during WW I.  Our own experience with the draft in the Civil War had been very problematic. Under a president not as eager to impose himself on the world stage as Wilson was, I don't see Hughes turning to the draft as soon as Wilson did. Hughes would have focused on building up the Navy, especially its ASW capability rather than sending troops to be ground up in France.

Couldn't a President Hughes have still eventually implemented the draft, though? Indeed, not as soon as Wilson, but sometime later?

Possibly, but probably not in time for the Allies to go on the offensive in 1918. If the Germans have time to consolidate their gains in the east and begin to get materiel from it, then even if Hughes ramps up the draft, a 1919 armistice is likely not as harsh as the 1918 one was. There's also the variable that without any noteworthy success, the mid-term election of 1918 will see war policy as a major issue, likely leading to no change in the draft until after the election.

Wouldn't it be difficult for Germany to acquire a lot of materiel from the East considering that the ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, et cetera in the East might not tolerate Germany's theft of their resources, though? After all, it's certainly not like Poles, Ukrainians, et cetera were incapable of rebelling against the Germans!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In this timeline, I doubt if the draft will be expanded as much as it was.

Why exactly do you say that? Because President Hughes would have wanted to avoid being seen as a warmonger?

The draft was controversial. Canada didn't introduce it until August 1917, Britain didn't until January 1916, and Ireland in 1918. Australia only used conscripted troops within Australia during WW I.  Our own experience with the draft in the Civil War had been very problematic. Under a president not as eager to impose himself on the world stage as Wilson was, I don't see Hughes turning to the draft as soon as Wilson did. Hughes would have focused on building up the Navy, especially its ASW capability rather than sending troops to be ground up in France.

Couldn't a President Hughes have still eventually implemented the draft, though? Indeed, not as soon as Wilson, but sometime later?

Possibly, but probably not in time for the Allies to go on the offensive in 1918. If the Germans have time to consolidate their gains in the east and begin to get materiel from it, then even if Hughes ramps up the draft, a 1919 armistice is likely not as harsh as the 1918 one was. There's also the variable that without any noteworthy success, the mid-term election of 1918 will see war policy as a major issue, likely leading to no change in the draft until after the election.

Wouldn't it be difficult for Germany to acquire a lot of materiel from the East considering that the ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, et cetera in the East might not tolerate Germany's theft of their resources, though? After all, it's certainly not like Poles, Ukrainians, et cetera were incapable of rebelling against the Germans!

Who said theft? Unless they tried to kill the golden goose, simply restoring something approximating a peacetime economy in the east would enable the Germans to get enough food and the like to keep the homefront relatively quiet. It was civil unrest, not a lack of war materiel that brought about the collapse of the Deutsches Heer and the Kaiserliche Marine at the end of 1918.

[Californiadreaming]

In this timeline, I doubt if the draft will be expanded as much as it was.

Why exactly do you say that? Because President Hughes would have wanted to avoid being seen as a warmonger?

The draft was controversial. Canada didn't introduce it until August 1917, Britain didn't until January 1916, and Ireland in 1918. Australia only used conscripted troops within Australia during WW I.  Our own experience with the draft in the Civil War had been very problematic. Under a president not as eager to impose himself on the world stage as Wilson was, I don't see Hughes turning to the draft as soon as Wilson did. Hughes would have focused on building up the Navy, especially its ASW capability rather than sending troops to be ground up in France.

Couldn't a President Hughes have still eventually implemented the draft, though? Indeed, not as soon as Wilson, but sometime later?

Possibly, but probably not in time for the Allies to go on the offensive in 1918. If the Germans have time to consolidate their gains in the east and begin to get materiel from it, then even if Hughes ramps up the draft, a 1919 armistice is likely not as harsh as the 1918 one was. There's also the variable that without any noteworthy success, the mid-term election of 1918 will see war policy as a major issue, likely leading to no change in the draft until after the election.

Wouldn't it be difficult for Germany to acquire a lot of materiel from the East considering that the ethnic Poles, Ukrainians, et cetera in the East might not tolerate Germany's theft of their resources, though? After all, it's certainly not like Poles, Ukrainians, et cetera were incapable of rebelling against the Germans!

Who said theft?

I was thinking of things such as a theft of Ukrainian and Polish food so that Germany's population doesn't starve. Indeed, wouldn't Britain have ensured that no food imports would have reached either Germany or Germany's Eastern European puppet states? If so, then would there have actually been enough food in, say, Poland and Ukraine to feed both their entire population and Germany's starving population?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did the Poles, Ukrainians, et cetera actually have enough surplus food to spare in order to actually stop starvation in Germany, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes; correct! However, wasn't this civil unrest caused by starvation and by some German soldiers' belief that the war has already become unwinnable?

[Californiadreaming]

Also, though, even if Germany actually manages to hold its ground in 1918, why exactly do you think that the Entente/Allies will settle for a relatively lenient armistice with Germany in 1919 if they can get a harsher armistice with Germany in 1920?

[Kingpoleon]

The French army started rebelling a full year before the German populace did. There's no way the French military could stay in another three months than they did with less American troops than OTL.

I think the Zimmerman telegram or at least its interception is butterflied away. It would be difficult enough to get the Democrats to agree to war with just the sinking of the Lusitania, much moreso mobilization.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The interception of a Zimmerman telegram would not be butterflied away by a Hughes presidency. The telegram itself might be, but only because the timing of a renewal of unrestricted submarine warfare might be changed.