AHC: American Free WW1

[PuffyClouds]

What would be required for the United States to not just stay out of the fighting in WW1, but to embargo arms sales to combatants, and outlaw making loans to the combatants? The US government must be publicly committed to neutrality from at least the start of the war.

I have a suspicion that McKinley might not have wanted to join the fighting, but that's a far cry from a complete non-involvement.

I expect this will require pre-1900 differences.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

What would be required for the United States to not just stay out of the fighting in WW1, but to embargo arms sales to combatants, and outlaw making loans to the combatants? The US government must be publicly committed to neutrality from at least the start of the war.

I have a suspicion that McKinley might not have wanted to join the fighting, but that's a far cry from a complete non-involvement.

I expect this will require pre-1900 differences.

Have the Europeans try to meddle in the Mexican Revolution, simple enough. Say the Brits start sending arms, loaning money to and recognizing the Huerta regime in exchange for greater oil concessions, forcing the US to either set up a quarantine blockade (which, say, the Brits challenge in the international forum as either an act of war against Mexico or a violation of their own commercial rights) or openly back/favor Villa and Caranza leading to a war scare with the Entente.

 

[TheCataphract]

Have the Europeans try to meddle in the Mexican Revolution, simple enough. Say the Brits start sending arms, loaning money to and recognizing the Huerta regime in exchange for greater oil concessions, forcing the US to either set up a quarantine blockade (which, say, the Brits challenge in the international forum as either an act of war against Mexico or a violation of their own commercial rights) or openly back/favor Villa and Caranza leading to a war scare with the Entente.

That'd do it. America didn't want to be involved in the war in the first place, it wouldn't take much to push them into full neutrality.

Another option might be for the various border disputes with British Canada to not be resolved as amicably as in OTL, such as say small frontier conflicts or unequal terms in a treaty or two that might not be enough to spark all out war but certainly could lead to a souring of US/British relations and perhaps friendlier relations with Germany.

 

[HammerofWar]

One of Robert Conroy's books "1920: America's Great War" followed this. France loses at the Marne and Wilson decides to keep out of it. There's no Lusitania either.

 

[Maoistic]

Didn't the US intervene in WWI because of an intercepted German telegram to Mexico that promised support for Mexico's territorial claims over Texas and California?

 

[PuffyClouds]

Didn't the US intervene in WWI because of an intercepted German telegram to Mexico that promised support for Mexico's territorial claims over Texas and California?

That (Zimmermann Telegram) was one of the major reasons. The British helpfully delivered it to the American government IIRC.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

One of Robert Conroy's books "1920: America's Great War" followed this. France loses at the Marne and Wilson decides to keep out of it. There's no Lusitania either.

Well of course there was no Lusitania; the war was over LONG before that event could have occured. I actually just finished reading that book... while Conroy does usually take some liberties with historical viability, it was one of my favorite of his works despite how wacko and belligerent it depects the Germans.

That'd do it. America didn't want to be involved in the war in the first place, it wouldn't take much to push them into full neutrality.

Another option might be for the various border disputes with British Canada to not be resolved as amicably as in OTL, such as say small frontier conflicts or unequal terms in a treaty or two that might not be enough to spark all out war but certainly could lead to a souring of US/British relations and perhaps friendlier relations with Germany.

Maybe, but would mere cooler relations be enough to get the US to commit to a total arms embargo and banning of loans if there was no immediate/very recent crisis though?

 

[TheCataphract]

Maybe, but would mere cooler relations be enough to get the US to commit to a total arms embargo and banning of loans if there was no immediate/very recent crisis though?

I could see it being a bit of a stretch, America tends to be pretty pro-free market more often than not, but if there was enough bad blood that the US was on good terms with Germany and the Royal Navy's blockade of Germany disrupted enough US trade with Germany I could definitely see an arms embargo and economic sanctions being a response. Hell, the US has fought wars in the name of opening up trade before, and that was one of the primary reasons for the War of 1812 (Impressment was more important but it was a factor). I don't think the US would have gone to war with Britain by any means, but I could definitely see an arms embargo in those circumstances.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

I could see it being a bit of a stretch, America tends to be pretty pro-free market more often than not, but if there was enough bad blood that the US was on good terms with Germany and the Royal Navy's blockade of Germany disrupted enough US trade with Germany I could definitely see an arms embargo and economic sanctions being a response. Hell, the US has fought wars in the name of opening up trade before, and that was one of the primary reasons for the War of 1812 (Impressment was more important but it was a factor). I don't think the US would have gone to war with Britain by any means, but I could definitely see an arms embargo in those circumstances.

Against G.B, yes. But against all belligerents as the OP asks for (AKA Strict Neutrality?). In this case, even if France and Russia are somehow lumped in as simply British Allies, why would the US government then ban loans and sales to the Germans? I can certainly see a hostile US/UK relation forming, but the problem with moving the POD too far back and making the relationship too broadly hostile is that its very nation-specific.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

Simple - simply have a different President - or a different Wilson.
Somebody who in 1914 tells the UK and France - "don't fuck with our trade. You can shove your invented yesterday blockade laws where the sun doesn't shine".
The US trades with both sides, although Germany and A-H don't get military stuff as that is "wartime contraband" and subject to time-honoured rules of blockade, but food, cotton, fertilizer and other non-military stuff passes through.
No US Government backed loans to the Entente starting in the summer of 1915 also changes the playing field.
All the above plus lack of "hold out before the Americans send over a million troops" mindset in 1917 - I'd expect a "white peace of exhaustion" in 1917 after the French Army Mutinies and failure of the Russian Summer Offensive.

 

[Derek Jackson]

President Bryan announces the USA will sell food to anyone and guns to nobody. That US ships carrying food will have US NAVAL escorts

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Simple - simply have a different President - or a different Wilson.
Somebody who in 1914 tells the UK and France - "don't fuck with our trade. You can shove your invented yesterday blockade laws where the sun doesn't shine".
The US trades with both sides, although Germany and A-H don't get military stuff as that is "wartime contraband" and subject to time-honoured rules of blockade, but food, cotton, fertilizer and other non-military stuff passes through.
No US Government backed loans to the Entente starting in the summer of 1915 also changes the playing field.
All the above plus lack of "hold out before the Americans send over a million troops" mindset in 1917 - I'd expect a "white peace of exhaustion" in 1917 after the French Army Mutinies and failure of the Russian Summer Offensive.

You'd also need a different Congress who's willing to pass the required legislation to back them (Particularly the "Banning loans" porition of the OP)... which I suppose, given the Progressive Era and its suspicion of big banks and bussiness is possible. However, I'd avoid overplaying the French Mutinies; one needs to remember that they were peaceful disobedience that was minor and civil enough that the public wasen't even really made aware of it, and their demands mainly consisted of getting a steady supply of hot food and not getting ordered at gunpoint into suicide charges. With less money, yes those demands are likely to kick in earlier and there will be more French corpses (If they can't buy American steel and chemicals for munitions that means less artillery, machine guns, all the lovely force-multipliers available in WW I that allowed for firepower to replace blood), but I imagine that translates into a combination of Britain shifting more of her supplies/support to France at Russian and secondary front expense. This likely means Russia also has to slow down her offensives and count more on Germany "Punching into the Pillow" while she avoids pushing hard on less-vital areas (like the Caucauses) while adventures like the Salonika Front and maybe even Gallipoli get put on the back burner.

 

[PuffyClouds]

Maybe Emory Upton lives a nice headache free life, becomes President in his 70s, and says: "Are you nuts? Did you not learn from the Crimean War, our war, or the Franco-Prussian War? We are not going to help you people murder each other."

 

[stevej713]

Perhaps an Anglo-Venezuelan War in the 1890s prevents rapprochement with the US, leading American lawmakers to see British naval power as a threat.

 

[PuffyClouds]

Simple - simply have a different President - or a different Wilson.
Somebody who in 1914 tells the UK and France - "don't fuck with our trade. You can shove your invented yesterday blockade laws where the sun doesn't shine".
The US trades with both sides, although Germany and A-H don't get military stuff as that is "wartime contraband" and subject to time-honoured rules of blockade, but food, cotton, fertilizer and other non-military stuff passes through.
No US Government backed loans to the Entente starting in the summer of 1915 also changes the playing field.
All the above plus lack of "hold out before the Americans send over a million troops" mindset in 1917 - I'd expect a "white peace of exhaustion" in 1917 after the French Army Mutinies and failure of the Russian Summer Offensive.

Hopefully an even earlier end.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

You'd also need a different Congress who's willing to pass the required legislation to back them (Particularly the "Banning loans" porition of the OP)... which I suppose, given the Progressive Era and its suspicion of big banks and bussiness is possible.

What I suggested does not need any change in legislation, but simply a different foreign policy.

However, I'd avoid overplaying the French Mutinies; one needs to remember that they were peaceful disobedience that was minor and civil enough that the public wasen't even really made aware of it, and their demands mainly consisted of getting a steady supply of hot food and not getting ordered at gunpoint into suicide charges.

The Public was not aware because of wartime censorship ...
The Mutinies were refusal to attack, yes, not a March on Paris or refusal to fight.
But it tells you that you are in deep shit - you cannot regain the territory lost to the Germans by military means. With no "millions of American troops to come in 1918 and do some fighting for you" means that negotiations suddenly become more attractive ...