If Teddy Roosevelt is US President during WWI AND lives longer, could we see the US entering the Russian Civil War?

[Futurist]

In the unlikely event that Teddy Roosevelt is US President during WWI (maybe Taft doesn't run in 1912, thus allowing TR to run and win in both 1912 and 1916; and there's no jungle expedition for TR in 1913 either, thus allowing TR to live longer) AND lives longer, could we see the US entering the Russian Civil War under his watch? TR always struck me as being the adventurous type and thus I could see him try to use the bully pulpit after the end of World War I to try rallying Americans' support for a US military intervention in Russia in order to overthrow the new totalitarian Bolshevik regime there. TR I have no doubt would have absolutely HATED Bolshevism, but I also wonder if he could have indeed been foresighted even to know that Bolshevism is a cancer that needs to be strangled in its cradle--if necessary, through outright US military intervention as opposed to hoping that the Russians themselves are actually going to be capable of doing this. The fact that TR's tenure during World War I is likely to be filled with less idealism and high hopes than Wilson's was in our TL could mean that there is less post-WWI disappointment and disillusionment among Americans--thus actually giving TR some kind of chance to rally American public support in favor of overthrowing the Bolsheviks in Russia.

Anyway, what do you think? Plausible or not? I think that TR might realize that if Russia is still Bolshevik, then there would be a very real and serious risk of a revanchist Germany and a revanchist Russia eventually cooperating with one another--thus posing a challenge for Britain, France, and the US if it decides to remain involved in European affairs in the post-WWI years in this TL. In contrast, if Russia is led by a friendly government, then it would be easier to contain a revanchist Germany with less US help in the post-WWI years.

Thoughts?

[Orwell1984]

OTL the US was already involved in the Russian Civil War.

Approximately 13,000 US troops were involved in the Allied interventions.

US involvement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... e,_Siberia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... rth_Russia

General overview of Allied intervention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_in ... out_Russia

So the involvement of US troops in the Russian Civil War isn't a What if. It's an It Happened.

[Futurist]

13,000 is WAY too small, though. I was thinking of a MUCH larger US military intervention in the Russian Civil War here. As in, actually enough to make a meaningful difference in the outcome of this war.

[Martin_from_Valhalla]

There's a difference in what we want today and what The US government wanted a hundred years ago. Apparently American political elite (or not political) at that time wanted bolsheviks to come into power in Russia and it happened with some American help. In any case, bolsheviks created their state and communists later helped The US people in the times of Great Depression. I'm afraid noone but communists made America prosperous and great that is why The USA had a narrow escape Roosevelt didn't launch a bigger intervention against bolsheviks.

[Futurist]

Which Americans actually helped the Bolsheviks come to power in Russia?

[Habu]

communists later helped The US people in the times of Great Depression. I'm afraid noone but communists made America prosperous and great

Sources please?

[Martin_from_Valhalla]

It's not about sources - it is about general perception how things were going in history. Along with Great Depression in The USA an industrialisation was proclaimed by Stalin in The USSR. A new Soviet state wanted to build factories as quickly as possible but there were no money, no resourses, no specialists, qualified workers. That is why Stalin started collectivisation, Soviet peasantry was robbed of their corns, herded in kolhozes, and at that times wheat and corns were like today's oil which were sold to The USA. Money earned were left back in The USA because Soviet government was buying different materials, equipment and machines, hiring American engenieers, qualified workers, specialists. Wheat and corn were of big help in the times of Great Depression aggrevated with draught caused by Dust Bowl. And money could alleviate consequences of Great Depression.

Later communists debacle in the beginning of Great Patriotic War brought some use to America because factories built in thirties were lost by communists, though some were relocated. Still USSR needed lend-lease and lend-lease boosted American economy. Lest we forget that communists just as fascists are partially blamed for WWII. Devastated Europe needed Marshal's Plan and it again boosted US's economy.

In the times of Cold War USSR was used as a boogeyman to make military complex thriving. And Europe needed US troops on its soil to have a protection.

Just something like that.

[Takao]

It's not about sources - it is about general perception how things were going in history. Along with Great Depression in The USA an industrialisation was proclaimed by Stalin in The USSR. A new Soviet state wanted to build factories as quickly as possible but there were no money, no resourses, no specialists, qualified workers. That is why Stalin started collectivisation, Soviet peasantry was robbed of their corns, herded in kolhozes, and at that times wheat and corns were like today's oil which were sold to The USA. Money earned were left back in The USA because Soviet government was buying different materials, equipment and machines, hiring American engenieers, qualified workers, specialists. Wheat and corn were of big help in the times of Great Depression aggrevated with draught caused by Dust Bowl. And money could alleviate consequences of Great Depression.

Later communists debacle in the beginning of Great Patriotic War brought some use to America because factories built in thirties were lost by communists, though some were relocated. Still USSR needed lend-lease and lend-lease boosted American economy. Lest we forget that communists just as fascists are partially blamed for WWII. Devastated Europe needed Marshal's Plan and it again boosted US's economy.

In the times of Cold War USSR was used as a boogeyman to make military complex thriving. And Europe needed US troops on its soil to have a protection.

Just something like that.

It's all about sources, since your "general perception" is wrong.

Your confusing low corn & wheat prices with low production. This is not true. US corn & wheat prices were low, because demand was low and production was high (on the average the US was annually producing over 2 billion bushels of corn through the 20s & 30s). Importing Soviet corn & wheat would only serve to compound the problem when there is already an oversupply, and no demand for the Soviet import.

Further, the Dust Bowl only affected mostly Texas & Oklahoma. Farms elsewhere were still over producing.

So, yes, I would like to see statistics of Soviet exports of corn & wheat to the US.

[Martin_from_Valhalla]

Actually, I have encountered some stats in the net, though in Russian. But I do not think you would be williing to learn this study even in English.
https://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Ukraine_Famine.pdf
Here is a diagram showing that USSR was exporting way more wheat than previously.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sov ... 4_30523454
The years are 1930-31 and guess what happened the following years - Famine in Ukraine. Even seeds were taken away from peasants. And there is a quote^

Rapid price decline in 1930 during ‘the great Soviet wheat dump of 1930–
31’ led to fears that banks would demand liquidation of stocks in the open
market.

http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads ... /ch056.pdf
Looks like the market was overflooded with grain.

It's all about perception, as one realizes that nevertheless, free market, trading, different freedoms, innovations would have made The USA prosperous without communists, but communists had a hand in it. As any American concerns only about his country's grievances, as a Russian concerns about hardships his people had to go through.

I was mostly pointing at mostrosity of Stalin's policy. At the first diagram you can see that in 1924 USSR was trading grain more, than previously. And at that time there was again a famine in Povolzie. And there was an organisation in The USA selling lottery to Americans. And money earned this organisation was sending to The USSR where canteens were opened for hungry children. But in 1924 ARA (the name of organisation) stopped its activity because in Soviet ports steamships were loaded with grain to sell it to Europe.

[Martin_from_Valhalla]

Forgot to add this book, how bolsheviks were selling Russian art to Amrica.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/defa ... s_1977.pdf

[Takao]

Actually, I have encountered some stats in the net, though in Russian. But I do not think you would be williing to learn this study even in English.

Try me...I've had two years of Cyrillic and my personal library contains some 100 books in Cyrillic. You might want to get to know someone, before you start slinging barbs about what they may or may not know, or be willing to learn.

https://sovietinfo.tripod.com/WCR-Ukraine_Famine.pdf
Here is a diagram showing that USSR was exporting way more wheat than previously.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sov ... 4_30523454
The years are 1930-31 and guess what happened the following years - Famine in Ukraine. Even seeds were taken away from peasants. And there is a quote^

Rapid price decline in 1930 during ‘the great Soviet wheat dump of 1930–
31’ led to fears that banks would demand liquidation of stocks in the open
market.

http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads ... /ch056.pdf
Looks like the market was overflooded with grain.

It's all about perception, as one realizes that nevertheless, free market, trading, different freedoms, innovations would have made The USA prosperous without communists, but communists had a hand in it. As any American concerns only about his country's grievances, as a Russian concerns about hardships his people had to go through.

I was mostly pointing at mostrosity of Stalin's policy. At the first diagram you can see that in 1924 USSR was trading grain more, than previously. And at that time there was again a famine in Povolzie. And there was an organisation in The USA selling lottery to Americans. And money earned this organisation was sending to The USSR where canteens were opened for hungry children. But in 1924 ARA (the name of organisation) stopped its activity because in Soviet ports steamships were loaded with grain to sell it to Europe.

Wonderful...As expected, you sources contain nothing about Soviet corn & wheat exports to the US.

Look here: http://library.cqpress.com/Cqresearcher ... 1933022400

In 1931, the last year for which percentage distribution figures are available, American exports to Russia consisted almost entirely of finished manufactures, while only 7.4 per cent of the commodities imported fell in that category. The principal exports of the last few years have been agricultural and industrial machinery, tractors and parts, motor vehicles, iron manufactures, copper, and cotton. The principal imports have been sausage casings, lumber, furs, manganese ore, fish, caviar, and canned foodstuffs.

Quite odd that corn & wheat are not mentioned as principal US imports from the Soviet Union...
Unless, your claim

Wheat and corn were of big help in the times of Great Depression aggrevated with draught caused by Dust Bowl.

Simply is not true.

[Habu]

It's not about sources - it is about general perception how things were going in history.

Actually, we kind of focus on facts here, not "perceptions". Claims without sources are meaningless. The person making a claim is expected to source his claims.

Along with Great Depression in The USA an industrialisation was proclaimed by Stalin in The USSR. A new Soviet state wanted to build factories as quickly as possible but there were no money, no resourses, no specialists, qualified workers. That is why Stalin started collectivisation, Soviet peasantry was robbed of their corns, herded in kolhozes, and at that times wheat and corns were like today's oil which were sold to The USA.

For the most part, the US wasn't importing major grains like wheat or corn (maize), during those years. (I didn't look at stats for other grains.) In the years during this period when the US was a net-importer of these grains, corn and wheat were purchased primarily from Canada. Import of grain from the USSR wasn't done simply because the USSR realized a higher price (at a lower transport cost) selling grain in Europe. As Takao has pointed out, the annual US production of corn (maize) alone was over 2 billion bushels (roughly 50 million metric tons, if I've done the math right).

The USSR was actively involved in grain sales in Europe, and played a significant role there. There's a good introduction to some of the factors in the grain market in the 1930s available online here: http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads ... /ch056.pdf If someone is inclined to get into this in depth, the footnotes can serve as a starting point for further reading.

Drought in the US was not "caused by Dust Bowl". From 1929 to roughly 1937 (the years varied by locale) there was drought worldwide. Common US farming practices (brought from Europe and the eastern US) were not adapted to the soil on the Great Plains. This resulted in additional drying of the soil, and lead to dust storms. "Dust Bowl" is simply a localized descriptive term for the dust storms and problems caused by the drought in the Great Plains states primarily affected in this manner.

Money earned were left back in The USA because Soviet government was buying different materials, equipment and machines, hiring American engenieers, qualified workers, specialists. Wheat and corn were of big help in the times of Great Depression aggrevated with draught caused by Dust Bowl. And money could alleviate consequences of Great Depression.

The USSR was buying materials and equipment in the US (and every other country) during this period, but largely on credit. Funds that were actually paid to US suppliers were transferred from sales in other countries rather than from sales in the US. The USSR defaulted on many of the loans used to pay for the materials and equipment. This did nothing to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression.

Later communists debacle in the beginning of Great Patriotic War brought some use to America because factories built in thirties were lost by communists, though some were relocated. Still USSR needed lend-lease and lend-lease boosted American economy. Lest we forget that communists just as fascists are partially blamed for WWII.

In the US, Lend-Lease was not seen at the time (and is generally not seen today) as a boost to the economy. Rather, it was seen as part of the war effort, and came at a significant cost to the US taxpayers. The US government was borrowing money to provide aid to the USSR. The USSR did provide significant quantities of chromium and manganese ore, much of which was returned to the USSR as part of the finished products. The USSR did also provide some refueling facilities to the Allied air efforts.

In 1947, the total value provided to the USSR by the US was estimated as approximately $11 billion USD. The US asked for $1.3 billion USD in repayment, the USSR counter-offered $170 million USD. This was finally settled around 1972 when the US accepted an offer of somewhere around $720 million USD from the USSR as part of a grain deal. (I'm going from memory on the final settlement amount, but should be roughly close.) The remainder was financially a "loss" to the US taxpayer, rather than a "boost" to the economy.

The counter-argument to this is that the Lend-Lease program was invaluable to the war effort, enabling the forces of the USSR to continue fighting. One view of time was that the materiel supplied was equivalent to that provided to 60 combat divisions. In interviews of many civilians who were involved in war production, I've noted a marked tendency that this will be the point they make: they were (and still are) focused on the effect of the supplies on the war effort, not on the short-term and long-term financial cost. Many--civilians and military--were very much aware of the cost in human terms to the people of the USSR of the continuing fight. They avidly followed the news, were aware of the fighting at Stalingrad, and mourned their inability to help the people of Leningrad. I've had probably a hundred people tell me they wanted to travel to Pete to see the city they had heard so much about during the war years.

Devastated Europe needed Marshal's Plan and it again boosted US's economy.

The Marshall Plan was seen by many as another expense--a political matter--rather than a "boost" to the US economy. The Marshall Plan cost the US another $12 billion USD. Again, this was not a "boost" to the US economy. People in the US recognized that the government was borrowing money (driving up the cost of loans for businesses, and limiting growth) in order to paying for what they produced. In the 1970s, many people were still very angry about the primary and ongoing costs of the post-war aid provided to Japan and Germany.

[Avalancheon]

Which Americans actually helped the Bolsheviks come to power in Russia?

Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg are two names that come up. They were both wealthy bankers.

[Takao]

Which Americans actually helped the Bolsheviks come to power in Russia?

Jacob Schiff and Paul Warburg are two names that come up. They were both wealthy bankers.

Only if you believe that bolshivism was a Jewish Conspiracy.

Schiff made no bones about being anti-Tsar, after all he basically financed Japan's war with Russia, and gave millions in loans to the Kerensky government. Then, held the Bolsheviks accountable for these loans after they overthrew Kerensky.

[David Thompson]

Locked for failure to meet "What If?" section guidelines.