Prince Henry of Prussia: The Rise of U-Boat.

[wietze]

the big difference between the 2 lists is the point of view.

the entente demands are demands for a defeated CP

the CP demands are more based in confirming current situation, and from the pov of CP and entente being equal (negotiated peace).

the neutral countries will realise this, and see the different messages broadcast by the 2 lists.
- entente, no compromise & aggression, excessive demands
- CP, looks like they want peace, moderate demands (compared to entente)

[Monty Burns]

Originally Posted by wietze

the CP demands are more based in confirming current situation, and from the pov of CP and entente being equal (negotiated peace).

That's it.

The neutrals will point this out from the start. And with each new German victory it will become more and mroe obvious that these demands are not to be taken serious.

Having the US as (partly) neutral negotiator is rather beneficial here, I think. I guess the US still lent a lot of money that is soon to end since the Entente has no more collateral offer?

In that case, the US get an interest in the Entente to win quickly. With more German successes, this becomes more and more unlikely. Thus, the next best option to save all that money is to end the war quickly before Britain and France make even more debt. Thus the US have an own interest to press for true negotiations.

If debt is no issue, then we will still see the US alienated. If you're a negotiator and one party is constantly overestimating their own position in spite of obvious continued setbacks (German offensive actions, Romania joining the CP, British naval losses, South Africa, Japan leaving the entente side, maybe Russia taken out), that won't improve their standing with the US.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Originally Posted by Monty Burns

That's it.

The neutrals will point this out from the start. And with each new German victory it will become more and mroe obvious that these demands are not to be taken serious.

Having the US as (partly) neutral negotiator is rather beneficial here, I think. I guess the US still lent a lot of money that is soon to end since the Entente has no more collateral offer?

In that case, the US get an interest in the Entente to win quickly. With more German successes, this becomes more and more unlikely. Thus, the next best option to save all that money is to end the war quickly before Britain and France make even more debt. Thus the US have an own interest to press for true negotiations.

If debt is no issue, then we will still see the US alienated. If you're a negotiator and one party is constantly overestimating their own position in spite of obvious continued setbacks (German offensive actions, Romania joining the CP, British naval losses, South Africa, Japan leaving the entente side, maybe Russia taken out), that won't improve their standing with the US.

Playing advocatus diaboli here.

If the US sees that the Entente is losing ground and will probably lose the war, then the only way to get the money already invested back is to turn the tide and help the Entente win. Thus the US has a strong incentive to join the Entente (even without casus belli). The sooner the better...

[wietze]

Originally Posted by Richter von Manthofen

Playing advocatus diaboli here.

If the US sees that the Entente is losing ground and will probably lose the war, then the only way to get the money already invested back is to turn the tide and help the Entente win. Thus the US has a strong incentive to join the Entente (even without casus belli). The sooner the better...

first of all there is no unlimited submarine warfare, and even in otl the us was already getting annoyed with the entente, so for the us president to get the houses to agree with a declaration of war against the cp will be very hard(without a casus belli pretty much impossible).

On the other hand if the us gets a little more annoyed at the entente, how big is the chance they will side with the CP? after all there would be a big prize to catch with that.....Canada.
the entente did a few stupid things themselves, so they might actually by accident produce a casus belli for just that.

edit: most likely thing is that the us stops the loans, and just sits it out, after all the loans to the entente at this moment were covered by collateral (land etc), so they will get their money back no matter what.

[Detlef]

Originally Posted by Monty Burns

Having the US as (partly) neutral negotiator is rather beneficial here, I think. I guess the US still lent a lot of money that is soon to end since the Entente has no more collateral offer?

Partly neutral seems right.
The Wilson administration hosted that conference.
They added their own "League of Nations" demand to the list. A neutral mediator shouldn´t do that. By doing so they have - in a sense - endorsed the other demands of the Entente powers?

I wonder how the US media and the political opposition in the USA are reacting to that move. Especially so soon after Wilson´s re-election in November 1916.

The CP proposal to use the Pope as a mediator seems a lot smarter politically. More "neutral" so to speak. And it should play well in neutral predominantly Catholic countries (South America, Italy, Spain).
The Entente snubbing the Pope publicly by not even reacting to his mediation offer but instead holding their own peace conference in Washington should add to that sentiment.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Detlef

Sorry I was unclear.
I was trying to see the "demands" from both sides through the eyes of neutrals, the public in neutral countries.

Just to mention a few points:
The Entente demand "free and independent Belgium" getting reparations would be a reasonable demand in those eyes. Germany invaded neutral Belgium after all.
France getting A-L seems less reasonable given that CP armies are occupying Eastern France. And not defeated.
The German "concern" for the "oppressed minorities of western Russia" would be seen favorably by several groups in the USA for example (Jewish community, Americans of Scandinavian origin). While seeing South Africa as an internal British affair would clash with Wilson's supposedly favored self determination rights.

All in all the Entente highlights in my opinion would sound harsher, more aggressive to a neutral? I´m not sure if that would help the Entente to gain support in neutral countries?

I did not spend much time at all thinking about what smaller neutrals think about peace, which is consistent with their actions in OTL. On Belgium, the entente do look better than the CP.


A-L is interesting. IOTL, they Entente demanded it well before the USA entered the war, and it turned out to be a good maneuver if one ignores the cost of the last two years of the war. And the front lines are near where they were in OTL. A lot of this shows my view of the war, which happens in a TL. The Entente is credit with great plans and diplomacy, when the war was a very close thing, and if the USA had not entered, this plans would be widely mocked. The RN won the war is a common position, and they focus on capital ships. But if the USA does not enter the war, the RN would be widely criticized and mocked for being irrelevant, at least the big capital ships. France's leaders would be know as the generation that made France a 3rd rate power. If you look at the decisions made by the Entente leaders in late 1916 IOTL and don't have foreknowledge, you would see huge risks for modest gains. Russia was falling apart. A-H looked like it was weakening, but much slower than Russia. Ottomans are doing decent, and once thinks through Russia leaving the war first, the look in pretty good situation. Verdun was a bloody draw that bleed the French more than the Germans. The UK would know it would run out of money in the 12-18 month time frame. So in some ways, the Entente was a almost delusional gambler, bailed out by the one possible way to avoid a draw/defeat. Hitler is rightly mocked for taking insane risks. But the UK/France are not mocked for taking huge risks that required the USA to save them, twice. And the USA only entered after huge diplomatic mistakes by Germany and a pro-UK USA president.

Yes, Germany has some supporters in USA (Poles/Jews) but there are a lot of other Slavs in the USA who go the other way. As to Wilson, he often compromised. He was for self determination of people in Austria Hungary and Poles in German and Russia. He sort of ignored Irish, Basque, people in middle east, minorities in Russia that are not Poles. He talked a big game as an idealist, but his deeds did not match. I just had him make one more compromise to his "values".

Originally Posted by wietze

the big difference between the 2 lists is the point of view.

the entente demands are demands for a defeated CP

the CP demands are more based in confirming current situation, and from the pov of CP and entente being equal (negotiated peace).

the neutral countries will realise this, and see the different messages broadcast by the 2 lists.
- entente, no compromise & aggression, excessive demands
- CP, looks like they want peace, moderate demands (compared to entente)

I can see a lot of people taking that position, but I had a slightly different take. The Entente are taking positions similar to OTL, it is just I know the USA will not save them. The CP is demanding large buffer states in the east, and is vague enough in terms it can impose harsh terms in the west if the battlefield conditions merit from later campaigns. If the CP had had a good diplomat write a reply to Wilson in late 1916, these terms are pretty close to what they would look like. Unconditional offer of peace that favors CP, no blockade. CP conquest cloaked in self determination, just like Wilson self-determination was mostly about breaking up/weaking Entente. And trying to make the "new international organization" structure in a way that favors the CP. All with plenty of ways to have backdoor out if there are largely favorable developments. Like the LoN/LoJ is fine, as long as the first issue covered in the treaty is how to make blockades illegal in the future, and how to setup a structure to cripple the UK ability to blockade. So for example, Wilson can get his League of Nations, but only if the UK agrees to very strict limits on its cruiser fleet and merchant marine. etc.

Now to be fair to the CP in OTL, if Germany had shown up with reasonable demands, the USA(Wilson) most likely picks one or two points and uses them against Germany and their still are no peace summits. Even if Germany went to ASB land with a Poland under a Hapsburg with guaranteed neutrality and a plebiscite in Posen two years after the war, Wilson would most likely find something wrong with this offer. Probably either the Plebiscite or West/East Prussia.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Monty Burns

Having the US as (partly) neutral negotiator is rather beneficial here, I think. I guess the US still lent a lot of money that is soon to end since the Entente has no more collateral offer?

In that case, the US get an interest in the Entente to win quickly. With more German successes, this becomes more and more unlikely. Thus, the next best option to save all that money is to end the war quickly before Britain and France make even more debt. Thus the US have an own interest to press for true negotiations.

If debt is no issue, then we will still see the US alienated. If you're a negotiator and one party is constantly overestimating their own position in spite of obvious continued setbacks (German offensive actions, Romania joining the CP, British naval losses, South Africa, Japan leaving the entente side, maybe Russia taken out), that won't improve their standing with the US.

You are missing positive butterfly for UK. Not sending Italy 2 billion and buying less goods for the UK means the UK does not run out of collateral until January 1918 at the earliest. It is in the USA interest for the war to go on for another year, at least for the USA war industry.

The Entente is under pressure, but from another source, the 5 extra corps in East Africa, Red Sea area. If Germany was turning west in 1917, the Entente lines might break. Also, the UK is at 40% of early war merchant shipping levels.

Originally Posted by Detlef

Partly neutral seems right.
The Wilson administration hosted that conference.
They added their own "League of Nations" demand to the list. A neutral mediator shouldn´t do that. By doing so they have - in a sense - endorsed the other demands of the Entente powers?

I wonder how the US media and the political opposition in the USA are reacting to that move. Especially so soon after Wilson´s re-election in November 1916.

The CP proposal to use the Pope as a mediator seems a lot smarter politically. More "neutral" so to speak. And it should play well in neutral predominantly Catholic countries (South America, Italy, Spain).
The Entente snubbing the Pope publicly by not even reacting to his mediation offer but instead holding their own peace conference in Washington should add to that sentiment.

Wilson lost. This conference is lame duck showboating.

Also IOTL, Wilson was not an agent for peace. The CP proposal for a peace conference and snubbing the Pope IOTL are not what one does if one wants to end the war. The Pope can both break a deadlocked item, and rally support around the plan.

Now in the ATL, Brazil is very important to MittelAfrika.

[Monty Burns]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

You are missing positive butterfly for UK. Not sending Italy 2 billion and buying less goods for the UK means the UK does not run out of collateral until January 1918 at the earliest. It is in the USA interest for the war to go on for another year, at least for the USA war industry.

Thanks for clearing that up! As long as loans can be collateralized, there's no need for the US to enter the war.

Once collateral is about to run out, they have two options: enter the war to avoid British default at a time when Russia is likely already out of the war and Germany looks even more as the winner, or end lending to Britain and hope on said collateral.

Overall, I find it a lot less likely that loans play a major role in US considerations until 1918 ITTL. This is very beneficial for Germany.

However, if negotiations start next year, it might be a good move from the German side to invite the US on the war debt issue. France or Britain will definitely hate it when Germany proposes to include the sale of Caribean islands to avoid their sovereign default. The US banks, on the other side, will be interested...

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

The Entente is under pressure, but from another source, the 5 extra corps in East Africa, Red Sea area. If Germany was turning west in 1917, the Entente lines might break. Also, the UK is at 40% of early war merchant shipping levels.

Right now I expect the war to be decided in the East. Once Russia is out, Britain will consider joining negotiations, but France won't. That will lead to frictions between the two Entente powers. From that point on, any German victory in the West, on the oceans or in Africa could be enough to let the British start negotiating. And then it's over - with a nice Dolchstoss legend forming in France about perfidous Albion.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Wilson lost. This conference is lame duck showboating.

Also IOTL, Wilson was not an agent for peace. The CP proposal for a peace conference and snubbing the Pope IOTL are not what one does if one wants to end the war. The Pope can both break a deadlocked item, and rally support around the plan.

Sure.

[Detlef]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

I did not spend much time at all thinking about what smaller neutrals think about peace, which is consistent with their actions in OTL. On Belgium, the entente do look better than the CP.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Now in the ATL, Brazil is very important to MittelAfrika.

Slightly disagree.
In our TL Italy wasn´t neutral anymore and the German colonies - except East Africa - were already completely occupied.
In this TL anything that helps reinforcing Italian neutrality is a good thing. Sure, the economic boom now is the major reason for that. But the CP choosing Rome as the location of their proposed peace conference and the Pope as a mediator probably does´t hurt.
Early on in the war in this TL German Cameroon occupied the island of Fernando Poo and fortified it if I remember correctly. Belonging to neutral Spain. The problem by now is more or less resolved I believe but anything that can relax relations even more is a good thing too.
And I mentioned South America not only for their importance to Mittelafrika but I was also thinking about (unofficial German ally?) South Africa. They need to trade right now but the British Empire probably is pressuring South American countries quite a lot to boycott South Africa. Anything that positively influences public opinion in these countries is probably helping here too.
(You know, like the lowly port official who is shocked, shocked to discover that the last 5 ships leaving port for Africa had cargo for South Africa on board. )

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Yes, Germany has some supporters in USA (Poles/Jews) but there are a lot of other Slavs in the USA who go the other way. As to Wilson, he often compromised. He was for self determination of people in Austria Hungary and Poles in German and Russia. He sort of ignored Irish, Basque, people in middle east, minorities in Russia that are not Poles. He talked a big game as an idealist, but his deeds did not match. I just had him make one more compromise to his "values".

Without unlimited German submarine warfare (Lusitania etc.) German-Americans might have faced less pressure?
And Scandinavian-Americans (especially of Swedish origin) probably like the idea of independent Baltic States and maybe an independent Finland too?
Taken together with Poles, Jews, maybe Irish-Americans that seems to be a pretty large group in the USA. Especially since Italian-Americans with ties back to Italy will be neutral.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Wilson lost. This conference is lame duck showboating.

Upps. Didn´t remember that.
I don´t think the new President-elect will be cheering. Was it normal for an outgoing President to do something like that?

[Monty Burns]

Originally Posted by Detlef

Without unlimited German submarine warfare (Lusitania etc.) German-Americans might have faced less pressure?
And Scandinavian-Americans (especially of Swedish origin) probably like the idea of independent Baltic States and maybe an independent Finland too?
Taken together with Poles, Jews, maybe Irish-Americans that seems to be a pretty large group in the USA. Especially since Italian-Americans with ties back to Italy will be neutral.

That got me thinking.

IOTL, the British blockade pretty much ended German trade with the US, whereas Britain and France bought a lot. ITTL, German trade should be much larger - although much should go to the colonies. On the other side, Britain and France are buying less. Maybe Germany was also able to secure some loans, leveling out that pro-Entente factor as well partially?

Granted, Wilson was anti-German, but he's gone...

[Detlef]

Originally Posted by Monty Burns

That got me thinking.

IOTL, the British blockade pretty much ended German trade with the US, whereas Britain and France bought a lot. ITTL, German trade should be much larger - although much should go to the colonies. On the other side, Britain and France are buying less. Maybe Germany was also able to secure some loans, leveling out that pro-Entente factor as well partially?

Granted, Wilson was anti-German, but he's gone...

I asked a similar question "pages ago".
I was also thinking about influencing "Wall Street investment banks".

If I remember correctly BlondieBC´s answer was mainly:
- No unsecured loans by the Entente powers yet. (And with less British loans to minor - in our TL - Entente powers, the British financial position is somewhat better.)
- And given German exports through Italy and some German exports from colonies, Germany doesn´t need any American loans yet. Germany still exports industrial dyes for example (high value, low weight) through Italy. While the German colonies export tropical fruits for example..

So Germany might seem to be a good risk for the simple reason that they don´t yet need a loan?

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Detlef

I asked a similar question "pages ago".
I was also thinking about influencing "Wall Street investment banks".

If I remember correctly BlondieBC´s answer was mainly:
- No unsecured loans by the Entente powers yet. (And with less British loans to minor - in our TL - Entente powers, the British financial position is somewhat better.)
- And given German exports through Italy and some German exports from colonies, Germany doesn´t need any American loans yet. Germany still exports industrial dyes for example (high value, low weight) through Italy. While the German colonies export tropical fruits for example..

So Germany might seem to be a good risk for the simple reason that they don´t yet need a loan?

I am not sure quite what you guys are looking for, but here is my guess.

It been a while, but here is the way I remember it. I do things that might best be described as the old D&D morale check. When I did the research, I concluded very late 1917 was the next time I need to do a financial check.

Germany proper is basically buying what it did in OTL plus 100,000 tons per month from Italy. By comparison, I would estimate the UK is getting 800,000 tons per month from the USA in OTL. Now since Germany is buying in Italy, often through Italian intermediaries. So the payments are mostly to Italian middle men. Germany can pay for this by selling assets in Italy or shipping gold to Italy or selling Italians assets in places like Switzerland or Greece, or even Germany proper. And Germany can export stuff like dyes using the Italians.

Imports to MittelAfrika are large but a big share goes through Brazil or Argentina, and I generally am assuming there is enough German assets in these countries to secure the debt, and also MittelAfrika is able to export to cover part of it. While 300,000 native soldiers and railroad workers are a lot of people, they are only a few % of the affect areas population. And Zimmermann is buying mining equipment by giving out mining rights and he is getting factories setup by offering monopolies. These have a cost, but not bond/debt cost.

And yes, the financial interest the USA makes by indirectly selling to Germany is helping keep the USA out of the war.

Originally Posted by Detlef

Upps. Didn´t remember that.
I don´t think the new President-elect will be cheering. Was it normal for an outgoing President to do something like that?

I think it not normal. I can't think of a similar example.

[Monty Burns]

So effectively the Germans do the same as Britain IOTL, but not with US creditors but with Italians, Swiss and other neutral countries and overall to a lesser extent. Germany IOTL was the high-tech exporter of the time, so they indeed have highly valuable assets to sell - although these need industrial capacity. Given that the Entente has less imports, the Germans likely need less as well so that industrial capacity should be at hand.

I'd add to the economic balances that newly independent South Africa likely has its trade connections disrupted and now is trying to set up new ones. The easiest trade partners right now are the German colonies. I'd also expect the Dutch to trade with the new enlarged Boer state. Quite likely that trade is very beneficial and the Germans can get raw materials even at a discount from South Africa? Another possible payment is promised land gains. And naturally South African companies will be very interested in the mining rights Zimmermann is giving out.

The Germans therefore still require printing money at home, I guess. But that's a problem for after the war.

Higher German trade with the US and less loans to the Entente means that war entry of the US is at least postponed in comparison to OTL. They entered around the date when Britain had no more collateral. That seems to be a year later ITTL. And even if that happens, the smaller credit exposure and the more important trade with Germany will delay things - not to mention the fact that South Africa and Japan already left the coalition and Russia is likely to leave before unsecured loans become an issue. You just don't join the loosing side if your money is secured.

[Grimbald]

Would Germany sell its interest in Samoa to the US or credit that can be used to buy goods for delivery to Italy? The NZ occupiers would not dare defy an Americam fleet sent to take possession.

Would Germany trade something to Denmark for Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes and then sell those to the US for goods through Italy.

Would the UK trade Bermuda, Bahamas, BVI, Falklands, Newfounland, Pacific possessions under similar terms.

Would Canada trade the NWT to save the UK?

What about French Polynesia? Extreme western Siberia?

Now it is obvious Woodrow Wilson did not want to add the span of US territory and control but what about Hughes?

Wilson had a perfect excuse to seize northern Mexico in 1915-6 and passed. Hughes?

[Detlef]

Originally Posted by Monty Burns

So effectively the Germans do the same as Britain IOTL, but not with US creditors but with Italians, Swiss and other neutral countries and overall to a lesser extent. Germany IOTL was the high-tech exporter of the time, so they indeed have highly valuable assets to sell - although these need industrial capacity. Given that the Entente has less imports, the Germans likely need less as well so that industrial capacity should be at hand.

As I see it Germany would try to avoid selling its valuable assets.
Pledge them as a security, yes. But use the money from exports (industrial dyes from Germany for example, exports from German colonies) to make the monthly payments now. Only sell assets if the exports don´t cover expenses.

Originally Posted by Monty Burns

I'd add to the economic balances that newly independent South Africa likely has its trade connections disrupted and now is trying to set up new ones. The easiest trade partners right now are the German colonies. I'd also expect the Dutch to trade with the new enlarged Boer state. Quite likely that trade is very beneficial and the Germans can get raw materials even at a discount from South Africa? Another possible payment is promised land gains. And naturally South African companies will be very interested in the mining rights Zimmermann is giving out.

Selling / auctioning off mining rights should bring in some money too.

Originally Posted by Monty Burns

The Germans therefore still require printing money at home, I guess. But that's a problem for after the war.

No question about it.
Even a victorious Germany can´t return to the gold standard immediately after the war.
But a victorious - or better said not defeated - Germany can make the interest payments on their war loans. Meaning that the middle class in Germany won´t feel impoverished.
There probably will be two "currencies" for years in Germany after the war.
A "gold backed currency" used for trade with neutrals (USA, South America, Italy).
And the paper money used for trade with the German colonies and the newly independent states in Eastern Europe. Kind of like, you export food and raw materials to Germany, you can use the German paper money to buy arms (for your army, navy, air force) or machinery in Germany.

That would take care of Germany´s immediate needs (food and raw materials) while allowing Germany to gradually return to the gold standard.
German South West Africa has diamonds, German East Africa has some gold (both only found a few years before the war). Import some tropical fruits, cocoa and coffee from German colonies using paper money after the war. Use the diamonds and gold to buy things not available in the German influence zone.
Followed by using the diamonds and gold to prepare for a return to a gold standard later on.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Monty Burns

So effectively the Germans do the same as Britain IOTL, but not with US creditors but with Italians, Swiss and other neutral countries and overall to a lesser extent. Germany IOTL was the high-tech exporter of the time, so they indeed have highly valuable assets to sell - although these need industrial capacity. Given that the Entente has less imports, the Germans likely need less as well so that industrial capacity should be at hand.

Yes, that is who I am modeling it after. And since German is doing a 100K tons, not up to 800K tons that the UK does outside the empire, and Germany has a larger economy, I am not modeling it. It could go on until the mid-1920's before I worry about it.

I'd add to the economic balances that newly independent South Africa likely has its trade connections disrupted and now is trying to set up new ones. The easiest trade partners right now are the German colonies. I'd also expect the Dutch to trade with the new enlarged Boer state. Quite likely that trade is very beneficial and the Germans can get raw materials even at a discount from South Africa? Another possible payment is promised land gains. And naturally South African companies will be very interested in the mining rights Zimmermann is giving out.

I figure that South Africa just buys from USA via Brazil, along with South America. Can't really see an overstretched UK fleet harassing the USA/South Africa trade. The UK still has the Dutch on a budget, like OTL, so not too much to South Africa until after the war. The best mining/land gains went to Germans in South America, then to south Americans. South Africa is a bit late to the game.

The Germans therefore still require printing money at home, I guess. But that's a problem for after the war.

Yes, everyone is on paper money who is fighting in the war. All will have to deal with it one way or another. Wars cause inflation is a good rule of thumb.

Higher German trade with the US and less loans to the Entente means that war entry of the US is at least postponed in comparison to OTL. They entered around the date when Britain had no more collateral. That seems to be a year later ITTL. And even if that happens, the smaller credit exposure and the more important trade with Germany will delay things - not to mention the fact that South Africa and Japan already left the coalition and Russia is likely to leave before unsecured loans become an issue. You just don't join the loosing side if your money is secured.

Well, I have to figure out what Hughes wants to do. He can certainly find a reason to join the war for either side, but I am not sure he will. The problem is that Wilson did not increase the size of the US Army, so it has a long ramp up, and he risk the Entente collapsing first. The risk on joining the CP is England has a huge army compared to the USA.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Grimbald

Would Germany sell its interest in Samoa to the US or credit that can be used to buy goods for delivery to Italy? The NZ occupiers would not dare defy an Americam fleet sent to take possession.

Would Germany trade something to Denmark for Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes and then sell those to the US for goods through Italy.

Would the UK trade Bermuda, Bahamas, BVI, Falklands, Newfounland, Pacific possessions under similar terms.

Would Canada trade the NWT to save the UK?

What about French Polynesia? Extreme western Siberia?

Now it is obvious Woodrow Wilson did not want to add the span of US territory and control but what about Hughes?

Wilson had a perfect excuse to seize northern Mexico in 1915-6 and passed. Hughes?

I looked at various options to the UK problems. And I decide each was not realistic. Italy want major concessions from France or the UK such as Tunisia , Malta, and some colonial border adjustments. I just could not see the Entente giving up so much in 1915. India would gladly trade conscription for Dominion status, and this would be a huge game changer, but again, if the UK gives India Dominion status, it is ending the empire to a large extent. These two were easy options because they don't require a Dominion to agree. Land adjustment with Canada/US require both England and Canada to agree to the changes, which did not seem likely. Why not just make peace with Germany, let them keep Poland and some French land instead?

Samoa is occupied by Aussies.

Why would Germany want Iceland, Greenland?

I have never encounter documents indicating that the UK ever consider giving up land to the USA to pay off loans, so I did not consider it for OTL. IOTL, giving the USA big chunks of empty Canada and some Island would have made the USA much more pro-British, but it was not done, and the UK defaulted instead.

Don't have Siberia or Polynesia.

USA army is 138K plus 138K reserves. Hard to go fight powers with armies measured in the millions.

[Monty Burns]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

I have never encounter documents indicating that the UK ever consider giving up land to the USA to pay off loans, so I did not consider it for OTL.

That likely won't happen ITTL either with Britain. US loans are secured and smaller. Switching to unsecured loans will hardly happen here with the US less pro-Entente and the German situation far better.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

I figure that South Africa just buys from USA via Brazil, along with South America. Can't really see an overstretched UK fleet harassing the USA/South Africa trade.

That should be enough to give the US an interest in preserving South African independence. I guess that will soon play a role in negotiations.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

The UK still has the Dutch on a budget, like OTL, so not too much to South Africa until after the war. The best mining/land gains went to Germans in South America, then to south Americans. South Africa is a bit late to the game.

Well, I should have made that clearer: I don't expect a large number of South Africans to go for mining rights, just the 2 or 3 big players. DeBeers will surely have bought in.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Yes, everyone is on paper money who is fighting in the war. All will have to deal with it one way or another. Wars cause inflation is a good rule of thumb.

True.

If Germany gets a central European trade bloc going, a unification boom should help them over that crisis. Inflation is much easier to bear if the economy is booming.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Well, I have to figure out what Hughes wants to do. He can certainly find a reason to join the war for either side, but I am not sure he will. The problem is that Wilson did not increase the size of the US Army, so it has a long ramp up, and he risk the Entente collapsing first. The risk on joining the CP is England has a huge army compared to the USA.

At the current point in time, the risk in joining the Entente is larger than IOTL because Germany is in a much better situation, has more trade to the US and a better navy. They'll have second thoughts in joining the Entente when the war goes so well for the then enemy. On the other side, the possible gains are smaller. A lot less credit and all that secured means that there's nothing to worry about. German trade will be lost. Soon enough, the US will try to preserve South African independence. Negotiations might bring up the idea of Britain and France selling islands in the Carribean at a good price.

All in all, the US will increase their military and wait. Germany is safe from the US war entry for at least a year. Let's see what they accomplish during that time and how that encourages the US to fight them...

[Monty Burns]

5 days without anything going on here?

Update?

[Vnix]

Perhaps the Dutch can raise some hell I'm the US about the british 'blockade'of Dutch pors, this could allow the Dutch to increase trade again with the US and as such also aglow the Germans to import from the US. That could go a long way towards increasing German Morale