Effect of USA trade boycott on WWI.

Ok, so there are some other threads around right now, the one I created got off topic and didn't really get to where I was hoping it would, so...

Let's take a look at this ATL concept:
August, 1914 UK declares blockade of Germany.
September, 1914 the US issues ultimatium, "food for all, or else".
October, 1914, UK blockade intercepts US foodstuffs headed into CP ports. USA institutes complete trade boycott of all combatant nations for the duration of the war.:eek:

Now, how does this affect WWI?

1) Germany and A-H are not going to suffer all that much here, as they didn't really have all that much trade with the USA by this time anyway. 2) The Entente, OTOH, is going to be much worse off right away, and as things progress along this ATL, the problems are just going to keep getting worse.

In the other threads, the discussion had a change taking place late in the war when the Entente was running out of money and their loans were starting to come due, but in this ATL, the Entente will be unable to purchase anything from the USA at all. Right from the start in Oct, 1914. No fuel, no food, no nothing.

Discuss.:)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I have the reduction in supplies for a different reason in my ATL, but if you read the TL and exclude the Africa part, it will give you some idea of what I think can happen in the first 18 months. After that, the butterflies from other issues dominate. The order of magnitude reduction of supplies is about the same. It seems like you are writing a similar TL, so you can PM me or ask in the other TL.

But now I will try to outline what I see happening and decisions points.

1) Germany you can run basically the same as OTL, until you do a butterfly that effects it.

2) Food will not be an issue for the UK for the first two years. You will just get the 1917 rationing plan for UK in 1915. And by 1916, you may get the German 1915 rationing plan. But it has a morale impact that will show up over time.

3) UK finances are fine. The UK has plenty of foreign reserves through at least Spring 1918. it is like you living off your life savings of 1 million USD and cutting your annual expense from 250K per year to 200K per year.

4) The USA war industry is not ramped up yet. UK has years to find other sources. For discussion purposes, say a 10% reduction in 1915, 18% in 1916, 25% in 1917. For any TL, this is the most important number you have to nail down. Second most is impact.

5) Up to May 1915, Russia is not getting any significant supply loss, so you have to do little here for a TL.

6) By November, the UK has a little fewer supplies. They will lose a little more ground. The big gains are over, so for scale, think in terms of the UK loses Ypres, the UK has a few 10 more casualties, 10K fewer German. Attaching map from my TL on picture is worth Thousand words. Enough to change the stories of the war. Enough to make the UK a lot more concerned about Calais. Not really a huge strategic threat yet.

Now you have to make 3 major decisions that will drive the butterflies. Each has no right answer, so instead of me guess, I will ask you to make a call for Spring 1915.

1) Does Italy still enter the war on time? If late, what is date?

2) Does Bulgaria enter early?

3) Does the UK doing a little worse in the race to the sea or a change in OTL on Question #1 or #2 cancel Gallipoli?

No really right answers on these, I can argue both sides easily.

Ypres 1915 Jan.png
 
America loses billions of dollars of Allied orders and may even face economic retaliation from the increasingly angry Allies. America is seen as Germany's friend and the Allies become more aggressive towards America generally.

The pro British and pro French elements in the US start to exert pressure on the government to reverse policy. Although the Germans are the largest single group in America the Anglos have greater economic power and the pressure from them plus Wall Street would eventually force a change in policy. In the meantime America has lost billions of dollars in trade and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Spain makes a booming business in the transhipment industry

I was thinking Havana. Short trip from Port of New Orleans to Havana. Cheap labor to unload reload. Also Italy makes a lot of sense, and Italy will have a mini boom before they join the war.




America loses billions of dollars of Allied orders and may even face economic retaliation from the increasingly angry Allies. America is seen as Germany's friend and the Allies become more aggressive towards America generally.

The pro British and pro French elements in the US start to exert pressure on the government to reverse policy. Although the Germans are the largest single group in America the Anglos have greater economic power and the pressure from them plus Wall Street would eventually force a change in policy. In the meantime America has lost billions of dollars in trade and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Yes, the USA lose billions of dollars. Yes the allies are angry.

It is not so clear they become aggressive. It is possible that the Entente do this decision, but it will be a clear mistake even at the time. The Entente can't afford to bring another Great Power into the war against them, and they will know this. Pressure risk moving the USA from neutral to German supporters.

Also, it is not lost jobs, it is jobs that never existed. The USA economy will still be stronger than prewar economy, but not by as much. Humans handle losses much differently than gains not won.
 
If it does more than just boycott and actually pressured everyone to try an bring everyone to the negotiation table US might actually become more respected internationally by the populations in the nation's participating in the war the war might actually end in 1915 or 16 when the war starts to get ugly
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Also the other neutrals with large shipping, like say, Norway.

A lot less likely on Norway. Once the UK starts allowing goods into Norway, they can be sure that a certain % will be diverted to Germany. And the more ships they let through the blockade screen, the easier it will be for Germany to slip disguised/false flag ships in and out.

The merchant fleet of Norway can make a small fortune, but the ports will not be used much for transshipment.
 
Germany until 1917 got plenty of food from the US by having the CP-leaning Scandinavian states as middlemen. Sweden and Denmark will be very happy about this development.
 
A lot less likely on Norway. Once the UK starts allowing goods into Norway, they can be sure that a certain % will be diverted to Germany. And the more ships they let through the blockade screen, the easier it will be for Germany to slip disguised/false flag ships in and out.

The merchant fleet of Norway can make a small fortune, but the ports will not be used much for transshipment.

Convoys were organized for ships into and out of Norway to protect them from German raiders. The US battle squadron sent to European waters took part in this activity.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Convoys were organized for ships into and out of Norway to protect them from German raiders. The US battle squadron sent to European waters took part in this activity.

Yes, after the convoy system and after the Entente had extra help from USA warships.

Still has no impact on reshipment to the Germany. It is still longer than other routes. Still will not be happening to any large extent.
 
A Trade boycott of the Alllies is incredibly self-defeating. No trade with Britain, France, or Canada? These are major export markets. Devolved nailed it.

As a result of lost economic opportunities, Wilson is voted out in 1916. Charles Evan Hughes of the Republican Party becomes President, and the GOP likely controls Congress. The Republicans end the boycott, and the Allies are able to resume buying anything they want from the US. The US does not enter the war though - and won't unless Germany does something stupid.

The Allies have probably done slightly worse by the end of 1916, but will be reinvigorated with new support from the US. Germany knows it is winning, but not decisively so. It's possible that a negotiated peace might happen at this time, especially if the US offers itself as a mediator. But both sides may still think they could win, in which case the war continues. Russia ends up folding like IOTL, and then Germany attacks the West in Spring 1918. The Germans will feel less pressure to keep up the attacks without fear of American reinforcement, and the Allies won't have a morale boost from knowing the US is coming. Germans may not take Paris, but at this point some kind of negotiated peace may happen unless the Germans get stupidly greedy. Germany may be doing well, but economic mismanagement and famine is causing the home front to collapse. I think some kind of peace can be made by 1919.

Afterwards, fear of Bolshevism means Germans give aid to the Whites, and the Bolshevik government is defeated. The old Tsarist Empire lies broken and ruined.

In the West, Belgium may cease to exist, but France likely does not lose much land, although some colonies may change hands.
 
It seems like you are writing a similar TL, so you can PM me or ask in the other TL.
Yes.:cool:

And I will when I have had the time to read your entire TL.;)


Ummm.

America loses billions of dollars of Allied orders and may even face economic retaliation from the increasingly angry Allies. America is seen as Germany's friend and the Allies become more aggressive towards America generally.

The pro British and pro French elements in the US start to exert pressure on the government to reverse policy. Although the Germans are the largest single group in America the Anglos have greater economic power and the pressure from them plus Wall Street would eventually force a change in policy. In the meantime America has lost billions of dollars in trade and hundreds of thousands of jobs.


A Trade boycott of the Alllies is incredibly self-defeating. No trade with Britain, France, or Canada? These are major export markets. Devolved nailed it.

As a result of lost economic opportunities, Wilson is voted out in 1916. Charles Evan Hughes of the Republican Party becomes President, and the GOP likely controls Congress. The Republicans end the boycott, and the Allies are able to resume buying anything they want from the US. The US does not enter the war though - and won't unless Germany does something stupid.

The above two posts, while entertaining, kinda miss the thrust of this thread, as spelled out in the thread's title. What I am interested in here (This thread) is a discussion of the effects of the complete lack of trade with the USA for the duration of the war. NOT a discussion of how and why the USA couldn't have choosen the stated path, nor discussion on how such a boycott would end, and thus negate the entire purpose of the thread in the first place.


The Allies have probably done slightly worse by the end of 1916, but will be reinvigorated with new support from the US. Germany knows it is winning, but not decisively so. It's possible that a negotiated peace might happen at this time, especially if the US offers itself as a mediator. But both sides may still think they could win, in which case the war continues. Russia ends up folding like IOTL, and then Germany attacks the West in Spring 1918. The Germans will feel less pressure to keep up the attacks without fear of American reinforcement, and the Allies won't have a morale boost from knowing the US is coming. Germans may not take Paris, but at this point some kind of negotiated peace may happen unless the Germans get stupidly greedy. Germany may be doing well, but economic mismanagement and famine is causing the home front to collapse. I think some kind of peace can be made by 1919.

Afterwards, fear of Bolshevism means Germans give aid to the Whites, and the Bolshevik government is defeated. The old Tsarist Empire lies broken and ruined.

In the West, Belgium may cease to exist, but France likely does not lose much land, although some colonies may change hands.
The rest of your post is on topic, but follows from your attempt to discard the original premis the thread was started to discuss.

The bolded part DOES NOT HAPPEN in this ATL.:)

So guys, lets stay on topic, and limit the discussion to the war effort, and even more precisely, that part concerning Europe.

Will the USA loose a golden oppertunity to become a war profiteer? You bet. Will the Entente, who are costing the USA a great deal of her trade because of their blockade (and the German counter blockade), really be so myopic as to try to blame the USA for refusing to jump for joy? I rather think not. As far as neutrals acting as transshipment agents, perhaps at first and to some limited degree, but not once the USA prevents them from buying the stuff they don't use themselves.

I don't want to get derailed with talk of ancillary topics, and all the effects on the USA are not really the reason for this thread. Again, lets stay focused on what happens to the Entente war effort if they have no trade with the USA for the duration of the war.:cool:
 
Top