Different US Neutrality 1914

[Derek Jackson]

President Bryan announces that the United States will not sell arms to either side. He states that US vessels will be inspected by US officials to enforce this.

He also states that America intends to sell food to both sides and that any attempt to interfere with peaceful commerce might be seen as an act of War.


How does Britain react?

If America is able to make this stick does that prevent the U boat campaign, or at least surprise attacks by U boats?

Do the Republicans adopt a pro allied stance? IF so who wins the 1916 election?

 

[Peter Cowan]

It depends on how much the US wants to break the blockade and the legality thereof. Technically, blockade was only of territorial waters but, following precedent, the UK extended this to international waters. The US blockade of the CSA provided a legal basis for this interpretation.

In reality, it all depends on how much money was to be made - UK/French purchases from the US far outweighed German ones, the PR battle - German behaviour in the invasion of Belgium seriously upset US public opinion and whether or not the US fleet could force its way through the UK fleet and if so, would it be worth the cost.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Hold on a minute: before everyone goes kiting off on the subject of a different neutrality, the opening sentence raises a monumental question. Namely: how did an increasingly wearisome three-time loser/museum piece like William Jennings Bryan (a) gain the Democrats' nomination (about the only plausible mechanism I can see is a convention as hopelessly deadlocked as the 1924 convention IOTL) and (b) beat Taft and/or TR?

If Bryan had ever challenged TR directly, Bryan would have looked like he'd been run through a shredder; he did challenge Taft one-on-one in 1908 and ran head-on into a united GOP and came off much the worse for wear. In a three-cornered race involving Taft, Bryan, and TR, it would be a matter of who finished second between Taft and Bryan: I have no doubts TR would win that one.

 

[Tom_B]

Over at http://p209.ezboard.com/falternatehistoryfictoryfrm7 Soren's Dark Victory story has Bryan becoming President after both Wilson and his VP are killed by an anarchist bomb.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Over at http://p209.ezboard.com/falternatehistoryfictoryfrm7 Soren's Dark Victory story has Bryan becoming President after both Wilson and his VP are killed by an anarchist bomb.

Very well; said anarchist would had to have acted in 1915 or before, IIRC. But that's a Bryan presidency occurring through extraordinary circumstances. I may be reading too much into the initial premise, but the impression I got was that Bryan was (and this boggles the mind) duly elected in his own right.

I suppose anything's possible in the electorate, though: Harding was elected, as was Jimmy Carter.

 

[NHBL]

Blockade precedent...

Blockade precedents are intersting.
In the American Civil War, the US Supreme Court ordered some seized materials that were being shiped to a neutral nation (Mexico) returned--even though they were being shipped directly from there across the river to Texas.

THIS precedent says that the USA can ship anything to neutral nations, where ever situated--such as Denmark, the Netherlands, or Italy.

Also, the British intercepted ships using the doctrine of continual voyage--if the ultimate destination was an enemy nation, than it was subject to seizure. In the American Civil War, they specifficly denounced the doctrine--bulky freighters could transfer any amount of military cargo to Bermuda, which was then transfered to blockade runners. HMMMM....Precedent favors free trade.

Under The Hague 1907, the USA would be within its rights to embargo arms evenly, or permit the sale evenly--and its trade with neutral nations should be inviolate. A blockade of beligerant powers is legal--including stopping neutral ships bound there IN A LEGAL BLOCKADE.

The government can't sell to any belligerant--but private companies can--even war materials of almost any sort. Warships may not be sold to warring powers--even by private companies within the neutral powers. (Bethlehem Steel's sub sales to Britian come cleanly under that provision.

The government supporting war loans also is a violation.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm
The second link has all the relavant treaties.

And, of course, there's loots of ways to make the point about free trade without resorting to war. Some southern representatives or senators (I forget which) urged that we send "Ironclads" as escort. Certianly, an escorted convoy would make the point that we treat this seriously.
(And the usual problems of keeping a convoy together at night wouldn't be there--as neutral ships, they would sail brightly lit...)

Just a few thoughts

 

[violadog]

If Bryan had ever challenged TR directly, Bryan would have looked like he'd been run through a shredder; he did challenge Taft one-on-one in 1908 and ran head-on into a united GOP and came off much the worse for wear. In a three-cornered race involving Taft, Bryan, and TR, it would be a matter of who finished second between Taft and Bryan: I have no doubts TR would win that one.

I would like to throw in my two cents on this point, if you don't mind. I agree that Bryan going head to head against TR would be pretty bloody. But 1912 might be a different story. If, and its a big if, Bryan manages to capture the Democratic nomination, he is not facing TR and Taft at the height of their popularities, in fact they are at the low ebb and look like a bunch of feuding school children, and I think, if there is anything that OTL's American politics has shown use, it is that if one of the major parties is split, the other regardless of its nominee is a pretty good chance. After all if the Dems had tried to run Woodrow Wilson against TR at the height of his power, I image TR would win in a landslide and look what happened to him.

 

[Jasen777]

Bryan could win in 1912 against a split Republican party. Not certain of course, but I would think the odds would favor him.

Bryan supported Wilson's nomination in 1912, if he decided he wanted it instead he might be able to get it. No one would be better suited for the Democratic convention fight at that time.

 

[M79]

The UK is the major concern, they want our food and materials but are not about to let the Germans have easy access to American markets. I doubt they are willing to risk Canada for the sake of winning the war but look for them to interfere with our shipping *somehow*.

 

[1940LaSalle]

I would like to throw in my two cents on this point, if you don't mind. I agree that Bryan going head to head against TR would be pretty bloody. But 1912 might be a different story. If, and its a big if, Bryan manages to capture the Democratic nomination, he is not facing TR and Taft at the height of their popularities, in fact they are at the low ebb and look like a bunch of feuding school children, and I think, if there is anything that OTL's American politics has shown use, it is that if one of the major parties is split, the other regardless of its nominee is a pretty good chance. After all if the Dems had tried to run Woodrow Wilson against TR at the height of his power, I image TR would win in a landslide and look what happened to him.

If Bryan had (and this is verging on ASB territory but I digress) gained the '12 nomination, he'd be facing Taft at a low ebb but TR remained as popular as ever. Add to that the fact that Bryan would have been the first four-time nominee ever—and therefore the corollary that he and his message are pretty stale by now—and it adds up to a Progressive in the White House.

Look at it this way: Bryan's schtick was pretty tired in 1908, and he was running against one of the most leisurely campaigners ever in the person of Taft--and that was a two-man contest (OK, Eugene Debs also ran but in the grand scheme of things he was a minor character). The voting public would have taken one look at Bryan and the Democrats and said, "is this the best you could do?", with sizable Democrat-to-Progressive defections.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Bryan could win in 1912 against a split Republican party. Not certain of course, but I would think the odds would favor him.

Bryan supported Wilson's nomination in 1912, if he decided he wanted it instead he might be able to get it. No one would be better suited for the Democratic convention fight at that time.

See above: if anything, he'd face an uphill fight for the reasons outlined above, not the least of which was the sizable baggage of a three-time loser--and all three times to less-than-dynamic, relatively conservative GOP candidates at that in the persons of McKinley and Taft.

Don't forget that it took 43 ballots for Wilson to finally get the nomination in 1912, so I wouldn't put too much weight to Bryan's support. If he decided to break with Wilson at (let's say) the 35th ballot or so, the result is a deadlock in Baltimore's 5th Regiment Armory (which still stands on North Howard Street, by the way). If Bryan offered himself as a compromise candidate, the reaction would have been more of a sigh and "oh, all right...what choice do we have?" rather than one of significant enthusiasm.

 

[NHBL]

American Politics...

Getting Bryan as President is a bit far fetched, but perhaps another true neutral president. Or he ends up as Vice President--then Wilson has a stroke/steps in front of a streetcar/whatever...

And here's something I've concluded aftert watching the shenanigans, and reading about past ones:

American Politics is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN Imagine...

(Stolen from somewhere, but I'm not sure where. In short, almost anything can happen--and it usually does...)

So--we can contimue based on Bryan, or another true neutral president.

 

[Jasen777]

Don't forget that it took 43 ballots for Wilson to finally get the nomination in 1912, so I wouldn't put too much weight to Bryan's support.

Clark was the favorite going in, and received over half the votes on the ninth ballot. That's when Bryan gave his speech against Clark and for Wilson, so I'd say that's fairly considerable influence even if it took 2 days for Wilson to reach the 2/3 needed.

Trying to move forward, I'd like to hear what people think Britain would do in the situation.

 

[Derek Jackson]

My starting point for this thread was reading a 70 year old book and realizing just how biased US neutrality was in WW1.

My guess was that the most likely chance of a different policy was President Bryan (if anyone has any other idea of a President who would adopt such a polcity that would still meet the point of the thread.)

2 ways Bryan could be President in 1914

1) He is Wilson's VP and Wilson gets his stroke earlier and more lethally

2) Wilson still gets early fatal stroke and his VP also goes out of the picture- perhaps he chose an older guy than in OTL.

 

[Earling]

Not totally convinced that US neutrality was hugely biased.. simply realistic. Choosing to completely forgoe the massive profits to be generated through arms sales (and upsetting all those with an interest in the trade) meanwhile going to war with the entente (and thus giving up on all those sales) in order to trade food with Germany is simply not a rational choice.

I think acting as if the British shall just collapse and give up their ultimate weapon (the blockade) because America say they will go to war if they don't isn't right. The British are also unlikely to just cave in when told they are not in a legal blockade and/or are without precedent.

The USA will really not want to go to war with Britain for the sake of selling foodstuffs to Germany (especially when there are far greater profits to be made selling to Britain and France) and the President, no matter who he is, shall not have an easy time convincing them.

Frankly this policy is at best just as biased towards Germany as the actions of OTL were to the entente (if you consider them biased).. but without nearly as large a cash incentive.

 

[1940LaSalle]

Clark was the favorite going in, and received over half the votes on the ninth ballot. That's when Bryan gave his speech against Clark and for Wilson, so I'd say that's fairly considerable influence even if it took 2 days for Wilson to reach the 2/3 needed.

I take the opposite view: if he had significant influence, it wouldn't have taken another 34 ballots to get Wilson the nomination.

Now, on to later events: relations between the UK and the US would cool noticeably (to the delight of Irish-Americans and German-Americans, at least nominally). Germany would try to avoid attacking US shipping; quite possibly the State Department would hold up the sailing of the Lusitania to investigate the report of munitions on board, and either force removal if discovered, or encourage/compel US citizens to take an alternate sailing. That might remove one potential cause celebre, in that the Lusitania might not be sunk (either not attacked at all or arrive limping but afloat; I'd guess the latter).

Assuming the Lusitania had been attacked but not sunk, that still leaves something of a hot button: the Germans attacked a passenger liner, the munitions question notwithstanding. Also by now the US public is tired of Bryan's endless sermonizing and austere style (he would have made the dry receptions given by the Hayes administration seem like keg parties). The time is ripe for Republicans to take back the White House. While TR might not be in good graces/available, Charles Evans Hughes certainly is.

With a ticket of Hughes and Missouri governor Herbert Hadley, the GOP campaigns on the issue of U-boat warfare being tantamount to piracy, likening the U-boats to the Tripoli pirates of a bit more than a century earlier. That strikes a responsive chord (well, that and general weariness with Bryan's endless camp meeting presidency) with the voting public. On election day 1916, William Jennings Bryan is voted out resoundingly.

Hughes' first cabinet appointment stuns many: former president Theodore Roosevelt is appointed Secretary of State. Wasting no time, he sends a sharp note to Berlin warning against any future U-boat action like that against the Lusitania, declaring that U-boat crews and officers would be dealt with as would be pirates. When the Zimmermann telegram is made public in late March 1917, Hughes asks for a declaration of war.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Germany would have to be seriously stupid if their submarine campaign happened anything like that of OTL.

One has to say that Germany being seriously stupid is quite believable.

If that happened a strict neutralist President, I agree, could not win the 1916 election.


If Germany were more cautious with sea warfare I do not assume that a strict neutrality President would lose.

Remember too that America was pretty rural at that time. A market for food stuff is likely to please more voters than a market for arms.

 

[Shadow Knight]

A couple of things to keep in mind. The US actually from what I recall made more money selling food stuffs and raw materials (like raw iron or finished steel) than on arms to the Entente.

Also why in the above scenario (beyond Germany being somewhat believably stupid) send a Zimmerman telegram if the US has been truly neutral and even were trying to openly trade with the Germans? This just doesn't make sense. Honestly in such a diplomatic situation I think Germany would have abandoned (if never really adopted) unrestrictive submarine warfare (although sub warfare would have still be useful early on to sink much British and French merchant shipping).

 

[stevep]

Remember too that America was pretty rural at that time. A market for food stuff is likely to please more voters than a market for arms.

Derek

True. I think the vast majority of the US sales were food and raw products. The US wasn't a big arms producer until WWII. However the allies had a bigger market for those US imports than Germany. [More population in total plus more money to buy it]. Not to mention it was a lot easier to sell to Britain and France, who also had the shipping to carry the goods. Also, with the domination of the military in Germany so I'm not sure how much they would have been willing to buy food from the US even if America was in a position to sell it].

Steve

 

[PeterMac]

US Neutrality was always suspect

Hi New to this forum, but a few thoughts...

In 1914 despite American Neutrality there was always an underlying link with Great Britain. Amercians saw the war as 'somebodies elses' war but probably had a more sympathetic view towards the British. If Germany had not sunk the Lusitania then I think that the USA would have sat it out. If they had then I think that the war would have dragged on for a year or two more but ultimately the Germans & the Austro-Hungray Empire would have collapsed. Why? It ultimately was a war of attrition, Britian (as in the Napoleonic wars) blockaded Europe and the raw materials and foodstuffs needed to substain a war were lacking in Germany by 1917.

Britian thru it's Empire and trade with America could still afford to feed it's social and military war.

Ultimate outcome? Germany signs an armistance in 1920, it cannot feed it's soldiers or it's people. Lack of munitions become a logistic that it cannot solve.

Terms not so harsh as Versailles. Next, probably the Kaiser would still be in place and no Hitler would have had the fertile path to exploit his imagination.

The Kaiser allows a Democratic parliment to exist and Germany follows a path similar to those of other European Countries during the 20's & 30's.