Based on President Obama's actions and reactions to the events in the Middle East, Africa, and the Ukraine, we can make a pretty good guess as to how he would have reacted to some of the major events that have risen up over the last century. What is not so easy, is to ascertain what would be the outcome of those decisions.
World War I broke out in 1914, with an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austrian Empire by a Serb national. This incident, which drew little attention, even from the Austrian royalty at first, escalated due to bunch of miscalculations of the various nations and the pigheadedness of the rulers then in power and resulted in the largest and costliest war in history.
The American people wanted nothing to do with that war and neither did the President. Two things happened however, that changed Wilson's mind. After being warned, the Germans unleashed unrestricted warfare on the high seas. That really meant that they would sink any ship that was bringing supplies to the British Isles. They felt that they had to cut off aid to Britain in order to starve her into submission and get her out of the war. A lot of that aid was American. The German U-Boats sank 7 US merchant ships after resuming unrestricted war. In addition, a message was purportedly intercepted by the British that originated by Germany enticing Mexico to enter the war against the US. In return Germany would aid Mexico in reacquiring the territories lost to the US as a result of the Mexican American war. The British, of course got the message to Wilson via the American Embassy in Britain. This became known as the Zimmerman note. Wilson also had visions of advancing the US into the world stage and did not want us to be left out as a major player. As a result Wilson asked the Congress to declare war on Germany. The US declared war on April 6, 1917.
Now, the question. What would Obama have done were he President at the time? Would he have gone before congress and asked for a declaration of war, or would he have taken another route?
Obama would have faced with the same problems Wilson faced in his own time. Virtually no standing army, which would have meant a conscription and military buildup of the army and the industrial capacity to fight a war. But, Obama has shown that he does not support a military build up and is dead set against a draft. After all America was not threatened by that war. I believe that Obama would NOT have asked for a declaration of war. He would likely have met with Mexican leaders and got their assurance that they had no intention of going to war against the US. He would also have sent diplomatic envoys to Germany to try and negotiate some compromise concerning the open warfare stance of the German U-Boats. The Germans would have talked and talked and probably kept right on doing what they were doing, even though some compromise might be reached. He would likely put restrictions on the shipment of any military supplies to the Allied nations. He might have gone so far, although I don't think it likely, as to have US warships escort cargo ships carrying food, medical and other non military supplies to Britain and France, but I think that would be about as far as he would go. In the end I think we would not get involved in the European mess.
So what would that mean in the global sense? The war in Europe had degenerated to a static condition that became known as trench warfare. But, I think that condition was about to change. The Americans, entering the war in the real world, tipped the balance decidedly in favor of the Allies. In fact the threat of the Americans entry into the conflict spurred Germany into launching one of the largest campaigns in the war in a effort to end the war before American buildup could be accomplished. The campaign was moderately successful but resulted in huge German casualties. Germany, already in dire straights, saw the prospect of facing a growing force as the Americans poured tens of thousands of men, supplies of all kinds, and equipment in the fight, saw no course but to give it up.
But, suppose that the Americans hadn't come in and the Germans saw no threat from us? The Germans would not have been pushed into actions that shortened the war considerably. Given a little time, a new era of warfare was about to unfold. A new weapon, the tank, has been introduced to the battlefield. A weapon that could neutralize the most awesome weapon at the time in that type of war, the machine gun. The strategy of digging into static lines and sending thousands of men across no mans land into a hail of machine gun fire and artillery was going to come to an end as the armies learned how to use this new weapon.
England and France were the first to introduce the tank to the battlefield. But,after the initial shock the Germans begin to learn how to deal with them. They were slow, ungainly, and very prone to breakdowns. Also, the Germans are not stupid and they have some of the best engineers in the world. It is likely that given the time they would have designed and fielded a new generation of tanks to counter the Allies. Of course the development of tank technology would not be static on the Allies side either. New and better tanks would enter the fray and new tactics would be developed to utilize these new weapons. So the war would have become a war of movement again. Tank warfare would escalate as new technology entered the fray. Think of the rapid escalation of the airplane and air warfare during WWI which would continue as the war dragged on.
At about this time, to make things worse for the Allies, the Russian revolution and their withdrawal from the war has removed the threat to Germany on their eastern front and as result they can and do move their entire eastern army to the west to face the British and French forces. In addition this also opened up routes for goods to be imported to Germany where before she as literally blockaded and cut off from all trade routes.
At some point both sides would have probably had about all they can take in terms of manpower lost, as well as the drain on their treasury, and might seek an armistice. The British and French treasuries were both bare and without the infusion of American men and supplies the Allied armies were running on empty. Germany was no better shape. A treaty springing from this would not look anything like what came out of at the end of WWI. There would not be the punishing reparations from Germany. I don't know whether the royals in Germany would have survived the changes taking place. It is possible that the Kaiser would remain but would be reduced to a ceremonial monarch just as is the King of England. In any event the government that will emerge is not likely to fail as actually happened. The German people would not feel the humiliation that was heaped on them as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. As a result Hitler and the Nazis would not have risen to power. WWII might have been avoided altogether, at least in Europe.
Where does that leave us? Basically out of the loop. WWI did not develop the means to destroy a countries cities and industrial centers as happened in WWII. We would not have an advantage there. The American armed forces would not change much as we had no reason to build up our standing army. We would not have built up our Navy nor participated in the new evolution in warfare that had been developed by the European powers. Advances in tank, aircraft and other weapon technology would likely not be emphasized, at least as long as Obama was President and likely with his successor. The money necessary to do these kind of things would go to social welfare programs.
The end result, I think, if Obama had been President in 1917, would be a world far different from the one that actually happened. Whether that's good or bad depends on ones perspective.
World War I broke out in 1914, with an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austrian Empire by a Serb national. This incident, which drew little attention, even from the Austrian royalty at first, escalated due to bunch of miscalculations of the various nations and the pigheadedness of the rulers then in power and resulted in the largest and costliest war in history.
The American people wanted nothing to do with that war and neither did the President. Two things happened however, that changed Wilson's mind. After being warned, the Germans unleashed unrestricted warfare on the high seas. That really meant that they would sink any ship that was bringing supplies to the British Isles. They felt that they had to cut off aid to Britain in order to starve her into submission and get her out of the war. A lot of that aid was American. The German U-Boats sank 7 US merchant ships after resuming unrestricted war. In addition, a message was purportedly intercepted by the British that originated by Germany enticing Mexico to enter the war against the US. In return Germany would aid Mexico in reacquiring the territories lost to the US as a result of the Mexican American war. The British, of course got the message to Wilson via the American Embassy in Britain. This became known as the Zimmerman note. Wilson also had visions of advancing the US into the world stage and did not want us to be left out as a major player. As a result Wilson asked the Congress to declare war on Germany. The US declared war on April 6, 1917.
Now, the question. What would Obama have done were he President at the time? Would he have gone before congress and asked for a declaration of war, or would he have taken another route?
Obama would have faced with the same problems Wilson faced in his own time. Virtually no standing army, which would have meant a conscription and military buildup of the army and the industrial capacity to fight a war. But, Obama has shown that he does not support a military build up and is dead set against a draft. After all America was not threatened by that war. I believe that Obama would NOT have asked for a declaration of war. He would likely have met with Mexican leaders and got their assurance that they had no intention of going to war against the US. He would also have sent diplomatic envoys to Germany to try and negotiate some compromise concerning the open warfare stance of the German U-Boats. The Germans would have talked and talked and probably kept right on doing what they were doing, even though some compromise might be reached. He would likely put restrictions on the shipment of any military supplies to the Allied nations. He might have gone so far, although I don't think it likely, as to have US warships escort cargo ships carrying food, medical and other non military supplies to Britain and France, but I think that would be about as far as he would go. In the end I think we would not get involved in the European mess.
So what would that mean in the global sense? The war in Europe had degenerated to a static condition that became known as trench warfare. But, I think that condition was about to change. The Americans, entering the war in the real world, tipped the balance decidedly in favor of the Allies. In fact the threat of the Americans entry into the conflict spurred Germany into launching one of the largest campaigns in the war in a effort to end the war before American buildup could be accomplished. The campaign was moderately successful but resulted in huge German casualties. Germany, already in dire straights, saw the prospect of facing a growing force as the Americans poured tens of thousands of men, supplies of all kinds, and equipment in the fight, saw no course but to give it up.
But, suppose that the Americans hadn't come in and the Germans saw no threat from us? The Germans would not have been pushed into actions that shortened the war considerably. Given a little time, a new era of warfare was about to unfold. A new weapon, the tank, has been introduced to the battlefield. A weapon that could neutralize the most awesome weapon at the time in that type of war, the machine gun. The strategy of digging into static lines and sending thousands of men across no mans land into a hail of machine gun fire and artillery was going to come to an end as the armies learned how to use this new weapon.
England and France were the first to introduce the tank to the battlefield. But,after the initial shock the Germans begin to learn how to deal with them. They were slow, ungainly, and very prone to breakdowns. Also, the Germans are not stupid and they have some of the best engineers in the world. It is likely that given the time they would have designed and fielded a new generation of tanks to counter the Allies. Of course the development of tank technology would not be static on the Allies side either. New and better tanks would enter the fray and new tactics would be developed to utilize these new weapons. So the war would have become a war of movement again. Tank warfare would escalate as new technology entered the fray. Think of the rapid escalation of the airplane and air warfare during WWI which would continue as the war dragged on.
At about this time, to make things worse for the Allies, the Russian revolution and their withdrawal from the war has removed the threat to Germany on their eastern front and as result they can and do move their entire eastern army to the west to face the British and French forces. In addition this also opened up routes for goods to be imported to Germany where before she as literally blockaded and cut off from all trade routes.
At some point both sides would have probably had about all they can take in terms of manpower lost, as well as the drain on their treasury, and might seek an armistice. The British and French treasuries were both bare and without the infusion of American men and supplies the Allied armies were running on empty. Germany was no better shape. A treaty springing from this would not look anything like what came out of at the end of WWI. There would not be the punishing reparations from Germany. I don't know whether the royals in Germany would have survived the changes taking place. It is possible that the Kaiser would remain but would be reduced to a ceremonial monarch just as is the King of England. In any event the government that will emerge is not likely to fail as actually happened. The German people would not feel the humiliation that was heaped on them as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. As a result Hitler and the Nazis would not have risen to power. WWII might have been avoided altogether, at least in Europe.
Where does that leave us? Basically out of the loop. WWI did not develop the means to destroy a countries cities and industrial centers as happened in WWII. We would not have an advantage there. The American armed forces would not change much as we had no reason to build up our standing army. We would not have built up our Navy nor participated in the new evolution in warfare that had been developed by the European powers. Advances in tank, aircraft and other weapon technology would likely not be emphasized, at least as long as Obama was President and likely with his successor. The money necessary to do these kind of things would go to social welfare programs.
The end result, I think, if Obama had been President in 1917, would be a world far different from the one that actually happened. Whether that's good or bad depends on ones perspective.
