Heck, even sabotaging the French Lorrain iron mines when the Germans took them would have damaged the German war effort very significantly.
Treaty of Versailles without the US
- Thread starter Atterdag
- Start date
-
- Tags
- treaty of versailles ww1
@wiking want to comment on this I'm prity shere most of my arguments come from you anyway so?
Anyway one Morgan's loans to Germany in the 20's are totally different to the argument at hand (for one Germany never used it's saceratys to anywhere nere the extent Briton did becuse of the blockade) and I'm still prity shure that gold was part of the 3 months estamints that bank of England gave the government, and giving non-backed loans to baligerints (or even neutral powers I think) is still iligal no mader how much jp Morgan may want to help the allies.
Thomas1195
Banned
I mean, France adopting the more defensive Plan XVI would make German offensive thrusts look like the Japanese efforts at Port Arthur, except that the German would lose.
I quite doubt that the gold cover of either the pound or the frank was taken into account here but let's put things in perspective. First the US backing up continued French and British loans in 1917 us entirely a political issue. If somehow the US fails to become a belligerent despite German unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman telegram it still needs to do something. Openly backing the entente and passing the legislation to that end is the pretty obvious thing to do.
Second leaving aside the political part, the argument is that other means of collateral would be used to secure further loans. What could these be? Just for a few suggestions restructuring earlier loans that used higher levels of collateral compared to later ones, using part of the gold coverage of both the frank and the pound as collateral for new loans with internal loans replacing the cover and assigning specific state and colonial revenues as collateral for the loans (one notes that was standard practice in international loans both before and after the war)
History Learner
Banned
Anybody arguing that the U.S. was not THE deciding issue for the Entente needs to look up what Anglo-French banking officials and Petain were saying in 1917.
Thomas1195
Banned
To be honest this was unless we change the outcome of the Battle of the Frontiers, by changing French army doctrine and war plan for 1914, specifically adopting Plan XVI instead of Joffre's idiotic Plan XVII. In fact, all of the French's war plans prior to Joffre were defensive-counter offensive.
Last edited:
Thomas1195
Banned
The PODs in The Unwanted Clairvoyant TL can lead to this outcome, especially if the French keeps Longwy-Brien. I mean, it could have even turned the whole Schlieffen Plan into a dead trap for the German.
Dear @Lascaris
If ... the financial as well as economical as well as supply situation would have been as "gold" as you depict it ...
I wonder why the british cabinet as well as the Bank of Englnad pissed their pants in late 1916/beginning 1917 with the clear diagnosis by their own and outlook of running out of money (the Wilson admin had made it clear at that point it WON'T support unsecured loans - despite what you think of JP Morgan having put all his eggs into one basket), men and material (militarily as well as for their economy) ?
If ... the financial as well as economical as well as supply situation would have been as "gold" as you depict it ...
I wonder why the british cabinet as well as the Bank of Englnad pissed their pants in late 1916/beginning 1917 with the clear diagnosis by their own and outlook of running out of money (the Wilson admin had made it clear at that point it WON'T support unsecured loans - despite what you think of JP Morgan having put all his eggs into one basket), men and material (militarily as well as for their economy) ?
Thomas1195
Banned
As I said, the only way for this thread to happen is to have the French winning the Battle of the Frontiers.
An outright win in the Battle of the Frontiers has the French take Thionville and retaining Briey-Longwy.
If the French lose all of France North of the Oise, but manage to make those two iron basins, Germany will lose. To the Russians, most likely, but it will lose because of a lack of iron.
Reads thread...
See @Atterdag, thats why the how is as important, maybe more so, then the resulst stemming from the change.
See @Atterdag, thats why the how is as important, maybe more so, then the resulst stemming from the change.
Meh, people get way to caught up on the how. Any attempt to discuss the "what if" has been drowned out by two sides unwilling to entertain the possibility of eachother's scenario's and that really wasn't the purpose of this thread.
No USW has been brought up here many times. However the problem with that is that german society and military leadership was growing desperate of their chances of actually winning the war - and USW was seen as a chance to do that. If you dont significantly change the mentality of the german people and the military they will demand USW. Because as the war drags on it will be seen more and more as their best chance to win and end it. And about german opinion during the war on USA neutrality: seeing the amount of war material the USA sold to the allies and how it accepted the illegal elements of the british blocade there were already considerable doubts about that in Germany - and to tell the truth not without reason.
Agreed. Best way might be if both Wilson and Marshall die in early 1915, leaving the White House to Sec of State WJ Bryan. But given that there had never been such a double vacancy, it's a pretty long shot.
formion
Banned
Unfortunately that is not the case. The House of Morgan had hugely invested in the Entente war effort. Source: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-onli...morgan#The_House_of_Morgan_during_World_War_I
Likewise, the banking consortium Morgan set up would be bankrupt in the case of CP victory. Whether we like it or not, the people who owned the US economy were invested in taking their money back and become the dominant financial cast in the globe. If there was substantial trade with the CP and the Americans hoped to obtain their assets, only then the situation would be different. Wilson indeed didn't want to participate in the war but what about those who had the actual power?
In general, France was able to increase their fiscal resources from 7,846 billion francs in 1918 to 12,515 billion in 1919. It is important to state that this increase came from indirect taxes and monopolies ( post office, matches, tobacco, powder, telephone and telegraph, etc). Indeed in spring 1917 the foreign assets of France were running short. However, the gold and silver reserves remained in France.
Deleted member 1487
Too bad for Morgan he was a Republican and Wilson a Democrat. He had zero pull in the White House. Plus Morgan had his collateral and the Fed had warned banks making loans they were on their own in the case of default. The banks involved with the Entente didn't have any power left, given that they were heavily leveraged; you know the expression "If I owe you a million dollars I have a problem, if I owe you a billion dollars YOU have a problem". They made a bad bet and lost and Wilson didn't care because they weren't his donors/constituents anyway. Plus they tried to unseat him in 1916 and lost, so missed their shot.
The actual power to do what?
They could support a Republican in 1920, but so what? There'd be other years, and other Democratic Presidents. As for Wilson, he would have completed two terms regardless. What could they do to him?
As I already said ...
Huh ! ... are we on the brink of conspiration theories ?
... and were already accounted/earmarked/used as collateral for the loans they've got from the Brits who got the loans from JP Morgan.
What you ask for is using these reserves several times for a loan.
... How blind do you render the bankers of time ?
... and especially what bankers as all bankers 'available' as well as potent enouigh HAD already drawn loan on exactly this gold.