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

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
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?
Not sure about that. The problem is the German made a huge miscalculation and didn't fear the US. They expected the US to enter the war because of the USW, but they thought it wasn't a big deal because the US sdtanding army was tiny.
 
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?

Depends what sort of USW.

Iirc as late as Dec 1916 the Army was only calling for USW against armed ships. Wilson seems to have been coming round to accepting this, as he took no action over the sinking of the Marina and Arabia - both armed vessels - despite prodding from Secretary Lansing. However, he never stated publicly that he had changed his position in yhis way.

If Hughes were to make a speech declaring that "the murder of Americans on unarmed merchant ships is an act of war" - implying that armed ones were fair game, then Bethmann might have agreed to this form of USW at a time when H&L had not yet come out for the full-blown variety. This could have preserved American neutrality.

There is of course the consideration that the House of Morgan, the principal lender to Britain, had supported Hughes in the election. But for that very reason Hughes Might have been reluctant to back them - it could have looked like sordid deal, and Hughes was touchy about anything that called his good name into question.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yep could work, though if we fight to the last penny the UK wins? [just?]
Nope, any negotiated peace is effectively a British/Entente defeat. Because the British, French, and Italians depended on US food, oil, steel, gun cotton, etc. imports to keep going.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
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.
Question--couldn't the temptation for Transylvania have been very strong in Romania even if the pro-Entente Romanian King Ferdinand had died in 1916?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Find a way to keep the UK out of the war and you probably keep the USA out as well
Impossible unless Germany avoids an invasion of Belgium; plus, even then it might only be a matter of time due to British memories of pre-WWI Anglo-German naval tensions! :(
 

Deleted member 1487

Question--couldn't the temptation for Transylvania have been very strong in Romania even if the pro-Entente Romanian King Ferdinand had died in 1916?
There was a lot of pro-German elements in the government and military, so it's more a question of which faction wins the debate and without the pro-Entente monarch being around (with his French wife) to make the decision after resisting for 2 years, then it won't happen.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There was a lot of pro-German elements in the government and military, so it's more a question of which faction wins the debate and without the pro-Entente monarch being around (with his French wife) to make the decision after resisting for 2 years, then it won't happen.
Were the pro-German elements the remnants of the regime of King Carol (who died in 1914)?

Also, question--would this have actually been enough for Falkenhayn to keep his job after his humiliation at Verdun?
 

Deleted member 1487

Were the pro-German elements the remnants of the regime of King Carol (who died in 1914)?

Also, question--would this have actually been enough for Falkenhayn to keep his job after his humiliation at Verdun?
I don't know for sure, it was part of the bureaucracy, army, civil service, etc. I guess they weren't fans of the Russians. Romania was the last straw, maybe he still would have fallen, maybe not. It is the simplest change to keep him around for long enough for Russia to fall into revolution.
 
Impossible unless Germany avoids an invasion of Belgium; plus, even then it might only be a matter of time due to British memories of pre-WWI Anglo-German naval tensions! :(

Could have been different if the British had followed a strategy similar to the Napoleonic wars. Maintain the naval blockade, limited contribution to the land war and pay others to do the fighting. No idea if that would work or even be possible, but interesting
 
Impossible unless Germany avoids an invasion of Belgium; plus, even then it might only be a matter of time due to British memories of pre-WWI Anglo-German naval tensions! :(

Perhaps the POD is a different Kaiser - perhaps one who served pre-crowning in the Royal Navy and instead of trying to match it - builds a navy concerned only with Colonial policing

Also another POD no Entente Cordiale

And another one I came up with on another thread is Napoleon III being victorious in the Franco-Prussian war and the 2nd French Empire is still in existence and the dominant power in Europe and come an analogous WW1 in Europe and Britain sides with Germany or stays Neutral!
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Could have been different if the British had followed a strategy similar to the Napoleonic wars. Maintain the naval blockade, limited contribution to the land war and pay others to do the fighting. No idea if that would work or even be possible, but interesting
The problem with such a strategy in WWI appears to have been this: Russia and France were too weak to defeat Germany by themselves (or even with Italy's help, for that matter). Indeed, without large-scale British militarily assistance, I suspect that France would have fallen in either 1917 or 1918! :(
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Perhaps the POD is a different Kaiser - perhaps one who served pre-crowning in the Royal Navy and instead of trying to match it - builds a navy concerned only with Colonial policing

Also another POD no Entente Cordiale

Yeah, had there been a more cautious German Kaiser during this time, maybe German-British tensions wouldn't have gotten as bad as they actually were. True, Britain had its own interests and whatnot to protect and also had some economic competition with Germany; however, a different German Kaiser might have avoided fanning Anglo-German tensions further. Indeed, given rising nationalism in Austria-Hungary and Germany's own long-term weak position relative to Russia, a different German Kaiser might have decided that it's not worth spending so much money on the German Navy--risk of a British blockade of Germany be damned!--and instead to use that money to further strength Germany's Army and later Air Force as well. :)

And another one I came up with on another thread is Napoleon III being victorious in the Franco-Prussian war and the 2nd French Empire is still in existence and the dominant power in Europe and come an analogous WW1 in Europe and Britain sides with Germany or stays Neutral!

Good POD; seriously. :)
 

CaliGuy

Banned
More impossible because a Europe dominated by Germany is very much not in the British interests.
Bingo; indeed, you'd probably need to have a less bellicose German Kaiser in the decades before WWI in order to have a strong chance of British neutrality in WWI.
 
The problem with such a strategy in WWI appears to have been this: Russia and France were too weak to defeat Germany by themselves (or even with Italy's help, for that matter). Indeed, without large-scale British militarily assistance, I suspect that France would have fallen in either 1917 or 1918! :(

Plus you have to open a supply line to Russia which brings up Gallipoli. I'm sure that one's been hashed to death.
 
Top