There is evidence he would have acted. Forcefully, assertively and in a way to put heavy political pressure on the Kaiser to withdraw, and end the violation of Belgian sovereignty. That would separate the opposing forces on what was and continued for 3 long years to be the most deadly section of the front.

The evidence is the war plans of all nations involved had met with unequivocal failure by the end of 1914, making them more receptive for a face saving way out.

The British Expeditionary Force was nearly wiped out by the end of 1914. Conscription in Britain was eventually needed to fill the ranks.

Theodore Roosevelt was perhaps the most highly respected and admired politician of that age. If anyone could influence the nations of Europe to go to the peace table, he would have been the one, likely the only one, who could do it.

Since you wrote or are writing a book about TR, perhaps you could fill us in on his secret messages to the Kaiser over the Venezuelan affair in 1903.

I read Edmund Morris 3 TR books and recall that a top German ambassador was recalled over his misinterpretation of TR's war threats as a 'bluff'.

Decisive action, or the threat of it, can preclude or stop conflicts and wars, and send them to negotiation.

It's why TR built up the US Navy fleet when President, it's called holding 'the big stick' while talking softly of what needs to happen.

Politicking over federal bathroom use by 'Negroes', as was Woodrow Wilson's habit, won't do it. Although few seem to realize it here, the particular person behind the desk in the Oval Office can make a big difference to the progression of events, and world history. They are all not 'the same'.

Well, I am certainly willing to admit that my wife's experience, and that of her friends, was only anecdotal.  She had graduated from Unv. of Delaware, was a lesbian before (and, I guess, after me) and worked in Berkley, Ca, where at the time the attitude of the police was perhaps best exemplified by the policy then in place that any cop making a marijuana bust had to fill out an eleven page form explaining why he hadn't found any more pressing instances of crime to fight.

That said, and bearing in mind that she and her friends worked for the most part independently out of a "trick pad" so there was no issue of coercion by an agent/protector, what have you, the principal differential as far as I can tell most closely impacting the welfare of sex workers is the extent to which they are the object of societal opprobrium//legal persecution.

It is fundamentally odd that sex work is the only activity that is legal for free but proscribed if money is exchanged.  You can be a paid friend (therapist), hair cutter, foot massager, etc. but you cannot be a paid sex partner, at least not in cash but a valuable trinket is just fine.

My remarks about TR's anti-vice crusade should be taken in this context--I deplore any mobilization of police power to imprison sex workers (mostly but by no means exclusively women, and  increasingly men employed by women).