Creating a POD to keep the U.S.out of the 1st WW

I'm trying to create a POD that will keep the U.S. out of the 1st WW. I believe the major issues are getting rid of President Wilson, stopping the Zimmerman telegram plus unrestricted submarine warfare. So...

The presidential election of 1916 was very close hinging on California. Wilson won by 3,800 votes. Hughes failed to gain the endorsement of the governor due to missing a meeting with him. Does making this meeting give Hughes the election?

Hughes advocated increasing U.S.preparedness against Mexico. Wilson's plan in the event of a loss in the election was, I believe, to appoint Hughes secretary of state and the have himself and vice president Marshall resign, putting Hughes in office immediately. Does this allow for the U.S.to begin a military build up in late 1916 and increasing military involvement in the Mexican revolution? Can this prevent the Zimmerman telegram?

And if you have both of these will unrestricted submarine warfare alone bring the U.S.into the war?
 
Last line = yes
IMHO it does not matter who is in charge of the US ,unrestricted submarine warfare.... unless some means is found to increase submarine losses or some how reduce their potency.
The number of ships/lives lost may vary, the strength of isolationist tendencies may vary but one day the Germans will reach the limit of US tolerance
 
So I need to get rid of or alter unrestricted submarine warfare in some way. If Hughes is clearly building up the U.S.military, can this affect the German decision to go for unrestricted subs? Also Hughes didn't campaign on "keep the U.S.out of tge war" can this have any affect? I recall the German decision was closely contested. Is it plausible that simply having Hughes as president can stop even this?
 

Deleted member 1487

Have the Romanian monarch die in 1916 during the debate around entering the war, Romania doesn't enter the war, Falkenhayn holds on long enough for Russia to have it's revolution and his retains his position, there is no USW resumption, Entente runs out of money in 1917, peace in 1917 with no US entry.
 
I'm trying to keep the POD as small as possible (Hughes not missing a meeting seems pretty small). I also don't want to change the war in Europe up until the U.S. declaration of war if that's at all possible.
 
So I need to get rid of or alter unrestricted submarine warfare in some way. If Hughes is clearly building up the U.S.military, can this affect the German decision to go for unrestricted subs? Also Hughes didn't campaign on "keep the U.S.out of tge war" can this have any affect? I recall the German decision was closely contested. Is it plausible that simply having Hughes as president can stop even this?
Again probably not
The USA was neutral and willing to trade with all .[sort of]
The German problem was two fold.[at least!]
Firstly they could not get to America owing to far greater R.N strength.
And Two Money
The UK had invested a lot of money in the US ....Railways stockyards ,land, banks etc...so much so that in the 1880's/90's it became a political hot potato and places like Nebraska enacted laws to limit foreign ownership .....easily evaded but still the thought was there.
The B/E's principle export pre WW1 was money ...Sterling was the world currency.
Now the heyday of UK investment was long since gone by 1914 but there were enough assets and intangibles that the UK was assured of the money to keep buying and shipping stuff across the Atlantic .....and again Germany was not.

A fight to the last bullet is a UK win because that bullet is stamped ''made in USA''
And the Germans aren't stupid they can see this.
Now lots of other paths were walked before this and the arguments for and against were enough to turn the Jade river into steam and if you need a pod/s study those arguments as well as looking just at the US.
War may be hell but it is a hell made up of many strands.
This could a good pod
Welcome to this wonderful site
Kind regards
Hugh
 
Assuming that you pull this off and the US does become neutral
There would have to be a strict neutrality
How does that effect US industry/agriculture
IIRC the great dust bowl of the thirties was produces by tilling land to grow wheat for Europe.
No Henry Ford?
Economics...does the war end due to no money?
 
Have the Romanian monarch die in 1916 during the debate around entering the war, Romania doesn't enter the war, Falkenhayn holds on long enough for Russia to have it's revolution and his retains his position, there is no USW resumption, Entente runs out of money in 1917, peace in 1917 with no US entry.
Yep could work, though if we fight to the last penny the UK wins? [just?]
 
I've always liked the idea of Hughes winning the election. It's seems so easy and believable that it could have happened. I also think there's a lot of possible ramifications. You can start the U.S. military build up several months earlier, bringing more U.S. troops into the German spring offensive or possibly bringing the 100 days offensive forward. You can have greater U.S. intervention in Mexico. Hughes on the face of it seems more belligerent, this could affect how the U.S. acts in the war. He might go for full ally rather than co-belligerent. Just seems such a simple and interesting POD.
 
I've always liked the idea of Hughes winning the election. It's seems so easy and believable that it could have happened. I also think there's a lot of possible ramifications. You can start the U.S. military build up several months earlier, bringing more U.S. troops into the German spring offensive or possibly bringing the 100 days offensive forward. You can have greater U.S. intervention in Mexico. Hughes on the face of it seems more belligerent, this could affect how the U.S. acts in the war. He might go for full ally rather than co-belligerent. Just seems such a simple and interesting POD.
Interesting yes, simple no.....and that is no bad thing:)
Now the first question I would ask is this
If the US is known to be more belligerent than OTL does this make the warring powers more or less belligerent
That is do France/UK etc gamble more thinking that they are certain of intervention
Or
Does Germany go all out knowing the same.....or not.....and why
Oh and may I draw your attention to the three icons to the bottom right of each post.
They are a vast help
Regards
Hugh
 
Oh and may I draw your attention to the three icons to the bottom right of each post.
They are a vast help
Regards
Hugh

Ahh I was trying quote, opps. Thank you. If it's okay I'll think on the rest before running off at the mouth. Things I hadn't considered.

I did read the "U.S. stays out of the Great War" threads listed in the wiki, the potential of a republican win in 1916 seemed to be largely overlooked.
 
With all the interventions in Latin America in the years before the war one could escalate and draw US focus away from Europe.

Or the preparedness movement played out differently without the 1916 defense act and concurrent mobilization of the NG on the Mexico border did occur, or occurred later then the US wouldn't have the confidence that came from the deployment and prolonged training of some 12 Divisions.
 
Ahh I was trying quote, opps. Thank you. If it's okay I'll think on the rest before running off at the mouth. Things I hadn't considered.

I did read the "U.S. stays out of the Great War" threads listed in the wiki, the potential of a republican win in 1916 seemed to be largely overlooked.
Then I look forward to your further deliberations:)
 
Interesting yes, simple no.....and that is no bad thing:)
Now the first question I would ask is this
If the US is known to be more belligerent than OTL does this make the warring powers more or less belligerent
That is do France/UK etc gamble more thinking that they are certain of intervention
Or
Does Germany go all out knowing the same.....or not.....and why
Oh and may I draw your attention to the three icons to the bottom right of each post.
They are a vast help

Regards
Hugh

Okay so we have Hughes win. I found a thread from 2010 that does discuss this, seems there's some doubt Marshall would have resigned. So there may also be a lame duck presidency at a critical time. That's interesting all in it's own right. But assuming he goes along and Hughes takes office a few days after the election.

Looking first at Mexico. The U.S. had ceased active operations in June 1916 but the U.S. didn't withdraw until April 1917 and that withdrawal was unilateral. I'm supposing the entry into the Great War played a big part in this. Wilson had refused to allow Pershing to attack Chihuahua as it would lead to war. Now let's say in November 1916 with Pershing still in Mexico, some 100,000 U.S. troops on the border and, a new President. Pershing decides to push for a resumption of operations and Hughes says go for it.

As expected this leads to a second full on Mexican War. So we have the U.S. in hot war with Mexico. I'm guessing this is going to distact the U.S. and makes Zimmerman somewhat redundant.

This on the face of it makes unrestricted submarine warfare seem more likely? But now fighting a war in Mexico will the U.S. go for adding another war?

As to Europe, the U.S. would seem to be clearly more belligerent but also a little occupied elsewhere. I think it's more likely the allies and central powers will assume a U.S. entry into the war less plausible. The Germans will be more likely to go for unrestricted submarine warfare and the allies more prone to a negotiated settlement.

A lot here hinges on how effective the submarines are. The U.K. institutes convoys on schedule and has plenty of escorts by this time. However you also remove I think some 5,000,000 tons of U.S. merchant ships built during the war from the mix. On the other hand, a significant part of that tonnage isn't being used to ship the U.S. across the Atlantic. I don't know enough about naval warfare to more than guess at the outcome, but it looks like the U.K. still wins the submarine war but needs more of it's own resources to do it.

No idea how this will effect the land war. Or indeed if I'm stretching way too far to begin with. Any comments from people more knowledgeable would be welcomed.
 
Last edited:
Then I look forward to your further deliberations:)

Trying to take a more conservative approach with no resumption of operations in Mexico. The U.S. has 100,000 troops mobilised on the Mexican border. The massive 1916 naval program gets appoved and some similar, maybe smaller, program for the army as well. It's now clear to all that the U.S. is preparing for war.

The clear target of the naval program is not Germany but the British. The British can not respond it's normal way by it's own building program. I think all the European powers except possibly France will now tread a lot more carefully with regard to the U.S.

It seems unlikely that Germany would be under any illusions that if the U.S. jumps, it will jump the allies way. I think the allies will realise this too but that naval program will worry the British. Now nobody wants to provoke the U.S. But in general an intervention now seems more likely and it would probably on the side of the allies. The allies morale goes up and Germany becomes more cautious. It also needs the war over soon because intervention seems more likely.

So does Germany send the Zimmerman telegram? And is unrestricted submarine warfare judged too risky?
 
Last edited:
Trying to take a more conservative approach with no resumption of operations in Mexico. The U.S. has 100,000 troops mobilised on the Mexican border. The massive 1916 naval program gets appoved and some similar, maybe smaller, program for the army as well. It's now clear to all that the U.S. is preparing for war.

The clear target of the naval program is not Germany but the British. The British can not respond it's normal way by it's own building program. I think all the European powers except possibly France will now tread a lot more carefully with regard to the U.S.

It seems unlikely that Germany would be under any illusions that if the U.S. jumps, it will jump the allies way. I think the allies will realise this too but that naval program will worry the British. Now nobody wants to provoke the U.S. But in general an intervention now seems more likely and it would probably on the side of the allies. The allies morale goes up and Germany becomes more cautious. It also needs the war over soon because intervention seems more likely.

So does Germany send the Zimmerman telegram? And is unrestricted submarine warfare judged too risky?

There are other members of this board here who have far more knowledge than I in these matters, but the one comment I would make in response is this

I was never a matter of whether the US could outbuild the UK ,but whether it was willing to spend the money and historicaly [sp] Congress was not.
And why is France excepted?
The only reason I can think is that Paris looked to the Med and to the Far East...areas that held less interest to Washington.
Upon reflection and assuming a German victory in the East in 1917 and assuming a similar path in the West and assuming similar trade patterns and assuming a more warlike US and assuming there is still a RN blockade.
Then I would see the German army going for a great push something similar to the spring offensive and obviously for the same reasons
No Zimmerman and if the Germans limit un restricted submarine in some manner then the pot boils but does not boil over
Lots of assumptions there though and it gives the hawks in Berlin and elsewhere a little harder time
 
There are other members of this board here who have far more knowledge than I in these matters, but the one comment I would make in response is this

I was never a matter of whether the US could outbuild the UK ,but whether it was willing to spend the money and historicaly [sp] Congress was not.
And why is France excepted?
The only reason I can think is that Paris looked to the Med and to the Far East...areas that held less interest to Washington.

Isn't that what the 1916 program was? Congress finally being willing to spend the money? The normal British response to any threat to their naval supremacy was to try to out build. Whether or not they could do it with the U.S. is probably irrelevant, in peacetime, that would be the most likely response. But in 1916-17, they can't even try.

And France, the only place I can see where French and U.S. interests intersect is in the far east. The U.S. doesn't doesn't have any interest in threatening the French there but both have an interest in stopping Japanese expansion. Long term the U.S. doesn't threaten the French, so really a U.S. more likely to intervene is in their favour.

Upon reflection and assuming a German victory in the East in 1917 and assuming a similar path in the West and assuming similar trade patterns and assuming a more warlike US and assuming there is still a RN blockade.
Then I would see the German army going for a great push something similar to the spring offensive and obviously for the same reasons
No Zimmerman and if the Germans limit un restricted submarine in some manner then the pot boils but does not boil over
Lots of assumptions there though and it gives the hawks in Berlin and elsewhere a little harder time

Yes the question is, is a U.S. strapping on it's six shooters sufficient to dissuade the Germans from unleashing the submarines? They were very worried about a U.S. intervention in the OTL, the reason they held off so long. So is a U.S. clearly gearing up for war enough to convince them not to chance it?
 
Isn't that what the 1916 program was? Congress finally being willing to spend the money? The normal British response to any threat to their naval supremacy was to try to out build. Whether or not they could do it with the U.S. is probably irrelevant, in peacetime, that would be the most likely response. But in 1916-17, they can't even try.

And France, the only place I can see where French and U.S. interests intersect is in the far east. The U.S. doesn't doesn't have any interest in threatening the French there but both have an interest in stopping Japanese expansion. Long term the U.S. doesn't threaten the French, so really a U.S. more likely to intervene is in their favour.



Yes the question is, is a U.S. strapping on it's six shooters sufficient to dissuade the Germans from unleashing the submarines? They were very worried about a U.S. intervention in the OTL, the reason they held off so long. So is a U.S. clearly gearing up for war enough to convince them not to chance it?

Not sure I agree about the 'normal'' british resPonse because I can think of several different tactics
Japan in WW1 is still a british ally and is not yet seen as a great threat French and US interests intersect how?
And where?
We must be careful not to use our hindsight here
As to your last question an earlier and more aggressive US response is IMO going to cause trepidation maybe a pause of some sort but with the imperitives I mentioned some posts ago the germans must act and war has a terrible logic of its own
Very late here ..enjoy your day ..oh and try and read 'castles of steel' if you havnt already
Regards
hugh
 
Both easy and hard.
Easy: Avoid unrestricted submarine warfare
Hard: Create a situation where Germany doesn't go for it.

That's what I'm trying to ask. In the OTL you have a US president who's won the election by saying "I'll keep us out of the war. In this you have a president who's won the election by saying "let's get ready in case we do enter the war" and then doing exactly that. Is this sufficient for the Germans to keep one hand tied behind their U-boot commanders backs?
 
Top