USA stays neutral in WWI
- Thread starter Aranfan
- Start date
Depends of which kind of neutrality we speaking. If more Central Powers leaning, means no loans to Entente, than a Central Victory is possible.
CP have the edge unless US prepared to make loans without security, which OTL she consistently refused as long as she remained neutral.
Of course, much depends on the circumstances. If US stays neutral bcause Germany has not adopted USW, then her relations with Britain (already bad in 1916) presumably get even worse, to the point where she is imposing sanctions of some kind. That woulds tp things heavily against the Allies.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Very true. It's not sexy, but the fact is that the American financial contribution meant much more to the eventual Allied victory than American manpower.
It has been discussed several times before, i think the general opinion seems to be that by 1916/1917 the entente funds run out. after which things will go downhill for them. add in no USW and the us govt might decide earlier to warn banks against loans to britain etc because they are not safe.
just for a pod, let colonel house get a accident just before the war starts, should change at least some towards true neutrality.
just for a pod, let colonel house get a accident just before the war starts, should change at least some towards true neutrality.
Anaxagoras
Banned
I don't think the banks wouldn't need the US government to warn them about this, as it would be perfectly obvious.
Depends what you mean by "favouring the Entente".
What mainly favoured the Entente was simple geography. The CP had no land bridge to North America, so could not import from it except by sea - which the RN controlled.
Wilson had been sympathetic to the Entente in 1915, but by late 1916, thanks to repeated quarrels over blacklists and other blockade measures, was becoming a lot less so. What saved the Entente's bacon was not any particular pro-Allied sympathy on Wilson's part, but rather his self-image as the great mediator and peacemaker. This "kept him talking" and postponed any drastic measures against Britain, until the Germans shot themselves in the foot by resuming USW.
Last edited:
Except that what really happened was that the old ruling class was given back power for a few years, then congress tried to ensure something resemblin human rights for former slaves and racist thugs prevened the application fo the US constitution for nearly a hundred years
Still better than a Confederate victory though. The Freedmen could no longer have their families sold away from them, or be forbidden from learning to read and write. If they thought they'd be better off in the North or West, they generally weren't hunted down with dogs when they tried to go.
Some even managed to vote or hold a bit of property, though I agree it wasn't easy. Constitutions, I'm afraid, are only as effective as public opinion makes them. The supporters of Prohibition had to learn that all over again half a century later.
The same (to get at least slightly back on topic) applies to peace treaties. The victors' mistake in 1919 wasn't being unfair to Germany, but requiring too much of their own people. They imposed a Treaty over which they would need to stand indefinite watch, like some kind of international cops. In a world where every Cabinet Minister was literally or metaphorically "a survivor of the Somme" that was never going to work.
Last edited:
Even less so than in Germany, I guess. France is much more rural overall. While socialists could certainly take over Paris, I doubt that they'll get the whole country. So civil war with foreign intervention/support is likely.
You don't force on a country a treaty that will piss off their population you are forcing it upon enough to make very likely a second war unless you and your population are willing to fight a second war.
The real question is not 'fair' or 'unfair', there is only 'stupid' and 'smart'. One can argue for each and every piece of the Treaty being fair or unfair, but the more important question is were the parts of the treaty stupid or smart to have.
BlondieBC
Banned
Agreed. You have to be willing to enforce the treaty. And that was clearly lacking, even before Hitler. The peace deal with the Turks show how little the UK was willing to fight to enforce the post WW1 world.
And there is also the issue of capability. Even if we assume with handwavium that the UK and French people would elect cabinet ministers who would enforce the treaty, it is far from clear these two countries could both afford to both occupy Germany (probably 1 million troops, forever) but they also need enough troops to hold back the USSR once it recovers (well above 1 million in Germany/Poland/Romania). If we imagine a pacifist leader of Germany and a people that agree and a 100K man second class army, this means the UK/France will need to hold back the Soviets. Alone. With no USA help.
And the really sad part is this is not hindsight. There are editorials in the New York Times in 1915 describing how if Entente wins against Germany, it will lose the bulkhead holding back the Tsar's expansion. And that this is a unsolvable problem.
Jason222
Banned
Germany would beat the allies plan and simple USA had policy in place were not allow trade weapons country at war another country or allow give loans and US citizen not allow be ships going to country at war another country and all trade that country ship come USA. UK force surrender and worst yet France likley force surrender as well. Only Germany trade with USA if that happen. USA might side Germany instead.