Any good ways to keep the US out of WW1 militarily, but still giving enough economic and diplomatic support to the Entente that they still win.
Keeping the US out of WW1 militarily
- Thread starter Alexander the Average
- Start date
Don't realy see a chance to increase the economic and diplomatic support and still stay neutral. And if they are entering but not sending troops then there will be nasty rumors afterwards.
And if they somehow do it, then the French still have the problem of the mutinies. They were quelled in part by promises to do no further offensives without american troops present. So that is a big hurdel for Entente victory.
And if they somehow do it, then the French still have the problem of the mutinies. They were quelled in part by promises to do no further offensives without american troops present. So that is a big hurdel for Entente victory.
Deleted member 1487
Pretty much impossible. Unless the CPs screw up badly and lose before 1917 the US would either need to be involved or loans to the Entente would dry up in 1917 given US politics. You don't get lend-lease in WW1 given the politics of the US.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
Very difficult given that Woodrow Wilson wanted the U.S. involved in World War One so he could have a major role in dictating the post war peace terms.
Wilson and his admin. were making a serious effort to find reasons to justify U.S intervention.
Wilson and his admin. were making a serious effort to find reasons to justify U.S intervention.
Saphroneth
Banned
Perhaps if the Germans behaved better in the eyes of the world (no torpedoing merchant ships without warning, for example, or a lack of use of poison gas) then things might work out to keep the US out.
They had already a horrible reputation (war crimes in Belgium and France, forced labor of civilians etc. )
What if Hughes won the 1916 election? Would a Republican President have been more or less in favour of US entry into the war?
Saphroneth
Banned
Yes, I mean they don't do those things at all in WW1. They fight a squeaky clean war.
Of course, this necessarily means they do less well militarily for the years of the war up to that point (and may mean they can't win even without the US jumping in, but it's hard to tell).
Even with all the shit Germany pulled prior to USW the Americans were slowly drifting away from the Entente. They did not like the "Continental Blockade" the RN did and were not ready to underwrite unsecured loans.
So not only Germany did less then nice things.
But how to get the Americans so involved to near totaly back the Entente and not enter? After thinking about it further that may be near impossible. Esp. with the stipulation that the Entente has to win without American troops to bolster the French morale.
So not only Germany did less then nice things.
But how to get the Americans so involved to near totaly back the Entente and not enter? After thinking about it further that may be near impossible. Esp. with the stipulation that the Entente has to win without American troops to bolster the French morale.
not that myth again
first the germans operated under cruiser rules for quite a while.
and a squeaky clean war is a contradiction in terms.
and all the shit the entente pulled?
blockading neutral countries resulting in casualties due to starvation in said NEUTRAL country, random attacks on neutral countries in the hope to provoke them. what the germans did wasn't nice, but it was actually normal for the times,and the entente wasn't any better
mixing up WW1 and WW2?
Saphroneth
Banned
...er, yes. I agree the Entente didn't fight a squeaky clean war.
My point is that if the Germans are scrupulous in all things and the Entente are not, then the Entente get the short end of the stick morally. After all, the Lusitania was the "bloody shirt" - absent Lusitania, absent bloody shirt.
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Belgium
The Germans would have to avoid things like the francs-tireurs thing and the university thing.
Last edited:
The problem in the proposed scenario (loans, but no troops) is that the instant the Entente runs out of collateral the us loans money at high risk. The only way to minimize the risk is to send troops to "win the war", because a lost war means all that good money is gone. Without US troops the Germans actzually achieve numerical superiority on the Western Front (in 1918) - this buys time (as the amis are NOT coming) - probably enough time so the exploitation of Brest-Litovsk (and others) eases the pressure on the German (CP) economy. - So a CP win is not only possible, but I give it at least 2-1 odds (or better).
Considering this - the US would never loan without troops from mid/end 1917.
Either both or nothing.
Considering this - the US would never loan without troops from mid/end 1917.
Either both or nothing.
Penny for The Guy
Banned
Bring Me The Head Of Woodrow Wilson
In full agreement, Wilson was the warmonger who got the US in WW1, and without him the amis would have stayed on the farm, never having seen Pariee.
Wilson either fails election in 1926, or dies shortly thereafter, or, to be kind and gentle, let him become incapacitated to the point it cannot be covered up.
In full agreement, Wilson was the warmonger who got the US in WW1, and without him the amis would have stayed on the farm, never having seen Pariee.
Wilson either fails election in 1926, or dies shortly thereafter, or, to be kind and gentle, let him become incapacitated to the point it cannot be covered up.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
That might've made a difference. Hard to say. It might have to be paired with different German behavior. No Zimmerman Telegram for example.
An appropriate response to unrestricted submarine warfare may be to:
1) Sever relations
2) Just escort weekly convoys from USA to British ports with American warships (and back).
3) Seize German merchants in American harbors in compensation for any losses.
4) Allow American soldiers to volunteer in British or French or Italian armies without interrupting their service time and still receiving pay (call it training)
No need to declare war and commit scores of thousands of Americans to die for causes that have little interest to most of them.
1) Sever relations
2) Just escort weekly convoys from USA to British ports with American warships (and back).
3) Seize German merchants in American harbors in compensation for any losses.
4) Allow American soldiers to volunteer in British or French or Italian armies without interrupting their service time and still receiving pay (call it training)
No need to declare war and commit scores of thousands of Americans to die for causes that have little interest to most of them.
And could well have been nothing. British attempts to raise and unsecured loan were a total flop until after US entry into the war - and even then required a British mission and a US gov't propaganda campaign
Saphroneth
Banned
True, the Zimmerman Telegram is basically impossible to ignore and you need to butterfly it to realistically have an independent US.
If America looks like it will be going to stay out militarily then Zimmerman might not consider trying to get Mexico to side with Germany, so no Zimmerman Telegram.
Saphroneth
Banned
Which will do it. (I never said it was hard!)
But if you have German USW, then you have the possibility (to the Germans) of American intervention, so you might get Zimmerman sending his telegram.
Perhaps we're looking at this from the wrong end. More Entente nasty things instead of less German might work - or, rather, combine less USW and so on with more Entente incidents. (Say, the Entente being the first to use Gas?)
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
Both sides went all out to sabotage the other side by formenting rebellions in their back door. The Germans in Ireland against the British and by using Lenin against Russia. The British in the Middle East against the Ottoman Empire.
So the Germans taking a stab at using Mexico "just in case" is really not that hard to see.
So the Germans taking a stab at using Mexico "just in case" is really not that hard to see.