Could an earlier, rougher American entry into WW1 lead to de-facto desegregation of the military?

[KN1]

(Inspired by Reds! making use of a similar theme, albeit in a TL with a much earlier PoD.)

Would it be possible for an earlier American entry into the war on the Entente that, for any number of reasons/PoDs (an under equipped and unprepared Army, for instance), leads to heavy losses and increased demand for replenishments, end up breaking down segregation in at least the Army out of sheer desperation to replenish losses at the front?

If this could be possible, what specific PoDs might be needed? What might be the domestic response to such a development, especially when the veterans return home to a segregated society?

 

[raharris1973]

Before making a general pronouncement, I would only note that the more manpower-hungry Second World War did not result in a breakdown of segregation of the military, during the war itself. Even if it provided fodder to illustrate such a systems inefficiencies.

 

[Bellacinos]

You need to remove Wilson as president for this to be plausible.

 

[CalBear]

You need to remove Wilson as president for this to be plausible.

Exactly. Wilson set back desegregation for a generation.

 

[KN1]

You need to remove Wilson as president for this to be plausible.

Exactly. Wilson set back desegregation for a generation.

Well, that goes without saying. I was under the assumption that the only way America could join earlier in the first place was to have someone other than Wilson. But who then? Roosevelt may be the cliche answer, but I couldn't think of anyone else besides maybe Lodge?

 

[Zachary Jones]

Notably, Wilson was not hands-on in the issue of military segregation. The Army implemented its own segregation policy and Wilson did not interfere. If the US begins to suffer casualty numbers similar to its co-belligerents, then Pershing and Co would be forced to expand combat roles for black units. Desegregation is still unlikely, but black officers commanding black units who see combat on a large scale rather than in isolated instances is probable.

Any Republican president during this period (Roosevelt, Hughes, Root, Lodge…) would desegregate, but it is unlikely the army would do so on its own. Secretary of War Baker, though a liberal, was absolutely disinterested in racial equality and did not interfere or comment on military segregation.

 

[CalBear]

Well, that goes without saying. I was under the assumption that the only way America could join earlier in the first place was to have someone other than Wilson. But who then? Roosevelt may be the cliche answer, but I couldn't think of anyone else besides maybe Lodge?

I actually rather subscribe to the theory that Teddy could have potentially headed the whole thing off at the pass. When he left office his international prestige and standing was sky high, and his team was surprisingly good at international negotiations.

 

[Bellacinos]

Exactly.

I actually rather subscribe to the theory that Teddy could have potentially headed the whole thing off at the pass. When he left office his international prestige and standing was sky high, and his team was surprisingly good at international negotiations.

Are you saying Teddy could have prevented WW1 diplomatically? Because I’m very intrigued now.

 

[CalBear]

Are you saying Teddy could have prevented WW1 diplomatically? Because I’m very intrigued now.

That has been a theory that has been bouncing around for decades. It, as I mentioned, posits that Teddy, simply by being Teddy, along with Root & Co. could have smoothed thing out enough to keep a lid on things. He did have a decent relationship with the Tsar, as with the Kaiser and the British government.

It is, in a way, a version of "why the Hell didn't anyone have the common sense God gave a dog" argument that the War could, at least at that point, have been prevented if anyone with any stature had said "Y'all REALLY sure you want to ride this train?"

 

[DougM]

I will toss my 2 cents in. Wilson was in many ways the worst modern President the US has had. Between his support for policies that set back race relations by decades at a minimum and that have had impact up to this day. Add in his abuse of civi rights durring the war itself and lets not forget the way he/his family/his people covered up how I’ll he was and basically acted as president while he couldn’t. And you have a complete disaster.
But to answer the OP if we kerp the racist President out of office that is a HUGE step. But you need to eliminate a few of the old officers from the military or have a VERY active President pushing desegregation. A lot of military personal came from backgrounds that would mot have supported desegregation on thier own and were of an age that didn’t help. In 1914 if you assume senior officers were say 50 that means they were born about 1865 or so. This means they were kids in post Civil War time frame and that thier fathers probably fought the war. Add in that many senior officers tend to come from “military families” and you are going to see a disproportionate number high r a king officers that had family that foought for the south. So they are not going to willingly push desegregation in the military.
Thus you need a very active President pushing it. And willing to cause a LOT of ripples at a time the military is gearing up for its biggest war ever.
Personally I think that WW1 is all but impossible to see desegregation in. You need that extra 20 is years to get a generation that was not directly raised by the men who fought the ACW.
But preventing the damage Wilson did to race relations is a good start

 

[RanulfC]

Notably, Wilson was not hands-on in the issue of military segregation. The Army implemented its own segregation policy and Wilson did not interfere. If the US begins to suffer casualty numbers similar to its co-belligerents, then Pershing and Co would be forced to expand combat roles for black units. Desegregation is still unlikely, but black officers commanding black units who see combat on a large scale rather than in isolated instances is probable.

Any Republican president during this period (Roosevelt, Hughes, Root, Lodge…) would desegregate, but it is unlikely the army would do so on its own. Secretary of War Baker, though a liberal, was absolutely disinterested in racial equality and did not interfere or comment on military segregation.

As I understand it it was Congressional pressure to 'segregate' the US military that caused them to undertake it so as to ensure fewer "black" troops in the South which was an seen as an issue by Southern congressional powers. The Navy only haphazardly segregated (mostly due to the logistical issues of full segregation) and the Army had a rough time doing it even though they actually got a better budget for it. (Somewhat) Very quickly the military found it to be a mistake and very hard to support in any credible way since unlike the "civilian" segregation efforts the military DID end up having to be really "separate-but-equal" which drove up logistical and support costs greatly.

Wilson was not "hands on" but he both supported and officially directed the military segregation efforts in application. Without him as President it's likely you don't have the full blown support TO segregate that happened OTL and therefore once WWI is joined it will end up being a non-issue. Of course this assumes some 'common sense' in the higher ups in both the civilian and military circles which may not be there given the obvious performance of 'colored' troops in WWI and how it was ignored for the most part.

Randy

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

Given the level of censorship and violence directed at opponents of the war, what recourse would be possible if a president simply desegregated the military?

 

[DougM]

Frankly Congress could have done little to nothing yto stop the President from desegregation of the Army. If it was durring the war they cant cut funding and frankly the US needed the troops. And the truly pro segregation members of Congress were mostly (key word mostly) in the south. The rest of the country just didn’t care enough one way or the other if the military was segregated or not.
Problem is the President was basically a Southern Racist himself so…

 

[KN1]

Notably, Wilson was not hands-on in the issue of military segregation. The Army implemented its own segregation policy and Wilson did not interfere. If the US begins to suffer casualty numbers similar to its co-belligerents, then Pershing and Co would be forced to expand combat roles for black units. Desegregation is still unlikely, but black officers commanding black units who see combat on a large scale rather than in isolated instances is probable.

Any Republican president during this period (Roosevelt, Hughes, Root, Lodge…) would desegregate, but it is unlikely the army would do so on its own. Secretary of War Baker, though a liberal, was absolutely disinterested in racial equality and did not interfere or comment on military segregation.

Would a better question be then, who could be a more forcefully liberal Secretary of War?

 

[jmc247]

Having an unsegregated army for WW2 would have certainly been possible and would come with some issues though not a ton. The generation that went to war in WW2 was one or two generations removed from reconstruction. WW1 is a different ball of wax where it was really the children and young adults of reconstruction including Wilson that would lead the war effort back home and overseas. The racial fear and hostilities of that generation were many orders of magnitude greater than the generation that came before or what would come after in WW2.

 

[Zachary Jones]

Would a better question be then, who could be a more forcefully liberal Secretary of War?

Among Democrats, this is a tall order obviously. Baker was a weird pick for Secretary of War.”, even he admitted he had no military experience or even interest in military administration. It’s possible that Secretary of War Garrison may have been more favorable to black troops in combat roles, but I strongly doubt it.
Under Roosevelt, Leonard Wood would almost certainly be either Secretary of War or General of the Armies, and he would have been favorable to desegregation.