Germany does not lose WW1. What happens to Eastern Europe?

[Riain]

You gave a very good bit of information on the Eastern Front upthread, what about problems that France was having? An army that refuses to conduct offensive operation, while enemy troops occupy their sovereign soil, sounds to me (exactly) like someone that might just be open to a 'white' peace in the west, and let the Germans go hang themselves in trying to control the East.

Financially, if the USA isn't in the war, where are the Entente getting all the war materials that the USA isn't providing in this alternate timeline?

Moral wise, knowing that the 'Yanks are coming' is NOT true, how does the Entente keep going?

Even if the Entente doesn't go on the offensive the Germans are likely to fight for a result, their record was being bullish on war aims when things were going their way and they can't afford to wait out the British in particular.

IOTL the German economy shrank by 28% during the war, France's by 23% but Britain's grew by 8%, so the Entente can still fight on without US financial assistance from April 1917. They can take risks in order to save effort and Britain can eat itself for a while in order to avoid the horrific peace.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Even if the Entente doesn't go on the offensive the Germans are likely to fight for a result, their record was being bullish on war aims when things were going their way and they can't afford to wait out the British in particular.

I myself don't see the need for the German to feel that they need to press the attack, once Russia is out & the USA isn't coming in.

IOTL the German economy shrank by 28% during the war,
France's by 23%
but Britain's grew by 8%,

Germany lost trade with the USA/world.
France still had US and world trade, but had much of her land occupied/devastated.
Britain still had US/world trade.

so the Entente can still fight on without US financial assistance from April 1917.

No.
France and Italy cannot fight on without the British propping them up.
Can Britain continue funding the war effort of all three nations, on her own hook, and continue to buy American neutrality/acceptance of the British continuing their blockade of US trade with Europe?

As soon as the US is not able to sell to the Entente due to their bankruptcy, pressure is going to mount to re-establish trade with the rest of Europe, and keep in mind, this is the USA that just passed the Naval Act of 1916, precisely because of the British interference with US/European trade.

In OTL, the 1918 Germans were looking at the newly hostile USA entering the war, a new and more powerful enemy, not on the verge of collaspe after years of fighting, a nation not with her manpower depleted, but at full strength, with a population and industrial base intact and larger than Britain and France combined, and thus whose only chance was the 1918 spring offensives.

In TTL, the clock is still ticking, but this clock is the ticking of a breakdown of Anglo-American relations, which historically was already a thing. It isn't the Germans that have to win, and win quickly, it is the British that are forced to either break the Germans, or make peace.

They can take risks in order to save effort and Britain can eat itself for a while in order to avoid the horrific peace.

I have to ask here, what "Horrific Peace" are you referring to? What British territory is going to be lost?

 

[CHKeeley]

I myself don't see the need for the German to feel that they need to press the attack, once Russia is out & the USA isn't coming in.

But the blockade is increasing social unrest in both the army and civilian population and by the fall of 1918, the Austro-Hungarians are facing complete economic/societal disintegration. The risk of waiting is not so much from the war becoming militarily impossible, but from collapse due to mutiny and revolution.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Gaaah!

But the blockade is increasing social unrest in both the army and civilian population and by the fall of 1918, the Austro-Hungarians are facing complete economic/societal disintegration. The risk of waiting is not so much from the war becoming militarily impossible, but from collapse due to mutiny and revolution.

Ok, some facts that keep getting swept under the rug by the folks that want us to believe that the Germans must go on the offensive in spring of 1918.

Aug 29th, 1916 .
From Wiki:

President Wilson told Col. Edward House that he was anxious to hasten the day when the U.S. Navy was larger than the United Kingdom's, proclaiming "Let us build a Navy bigger than hers and do what we please."

So yes, the blockade was indeed causing problems, but not just for the Central Powers. The anti-navy US government, that historically always voted to keep the United States Navy small, had just instead voted to build a massive navy surpassing that of the United Kingdom, because of the British/Entente blockade of US trade with Europe, and this got signed into law on Aug 29th, 1916, less than 3 months after the battle of Jutland.

Historically, the only thing that saved the Entente, was when the USA joined the war, against the Central Powers, on April 2nd, 1917. In this alternative history, for whatever reason, the USA is NOT joining the war against the Central Powers, but IS building a "take no nonsense from anybody" fleet, that will be reopening US trade with Europe, thus ending the blockade upon which all Entente hopes were pinned.

Do we need to recap events, to disprove the whole "Germany MUST attack, because Britain can outlast them" narrative?

Naval Act of 1916, Aug 29, 1916.
US DoW on the Central Powers, April 2nd, 1917.
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, March 3rd, 1918.
Spring Offensive, March 21st, 1918.

That is the OTL events, but...

Naval Act of 1916, Aug 29, 1916. The USA is getting impatient with her trade being interfered with, so the clock starts ticking, for the Entente.
No USA entry into the war, no reinforcements arriving in France, French moral plummets, no hopes in Russia that American troops will break open the front in the west.
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, March 3rd, 1918. This only was delayed as long as it was because of the US entry into the war, without which, Russia exits earlier.
Spring Offensive, March 21st, 1918. With an earlier exit of Russia, and NO United States Army massing in France, the Germans can start rotating troops home for leave, boosting their morale while the Entente can only despair, as there is no help coming, and no hope. With Russia out, does the 1917 Ukrainian harvest feed the CP, or does that start with the 1918 crop? Either way, everyone knows that the food situation is improving despite the best efforts of the British blockade to starve them into submission, so all they have to do is just hang on. So no need to throw away their best troops on an offensive, when they can just rotate troops home on leave and rebuild their nations morale instead.

With their moral and economies collapsing, and their armies mutiny or loosing, how long do the French and Italians take to make peace?

Once France is out, the war is over no matter what the UK would like, so...

As I have been saying, in a no US entry into the war situation, it is the Entente, not the CP, that must win decisively, and soon, or make peace.

 

[Crazyduck156]

Either way, everyone knows that the food situation is improving despite the best efforts of the British blockade to starve them into submission, so all they have to do is just hang on.

In what regards was the food situation improving for germany? Keeping in the realm of reality where the US doesn't suddenly decide to declare war on the worlds largest navy just to trade with a nation that has been killing its citizens with u-boats and very publicly razed Belgium

And even if it does slightly improve saying 'Jam tomorrow maybe' to the population isn't going to fill already empty stomachs

 

[Riain]

Britain and France fought what I call a 'rich mans war', they were profligate with resources such as fuel in order to cover security in rear areas and virtually eliminate risk as well as fighting on colonial fronts that did not directly contribute to the defeat of the biggest threat. The entry of the US into the war meant they could continue to fight this way, but without US entry the British in particular had a lot of fat in their war effort that could be trimmed to focus on Germany for 6-12 months.

Given Britain in particular was the best combatant at politics and strategy, compared to Germany's advantages in the tactical and operational areas, I have no doubt that the Entente will continue fighting well enough between April and November-December 1917, at which point the Battle of Caporetto and the German-Russian Armistice will change things. At this point Britain and France will have to re-evaluate their options for 1918, maybe trying hard to get the US into the war, but prior to that their situation isn't so dire. That said I still think Germany will have to undertake an offensive in the west in early 1918 in order to secure peace.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

In what regards was the food situation improving for germany?

Ok, once again, here we go...
When was the low point for the CP, because of the British blockade?
Turnip Winter 0f 1916-1917.
After that, historically the US DoW's the CP in April, 1917, but that doesn't happen here, does it? The worst was already over, before the USA entered the war.

This is historical fact, and predates the PoD, check?

Keeping in the realm of reality where the US doesn't suddenly decide to declare war on the worlds largest navy

That was also locked in a life or death struggle with the world's second largest navy, you mean?

Also, the US doesn't even have to enter the war against the Entente, as they can just start seizing Entente merchantmen in American waters, as a direct reprisal for seizures of US vassals attempting to trade with Germany, and by American Waters, I'm not talking just US territorial waters, but all western hemispherical waters, as in North American, Central American, and South American waters, mind you. Without a shot being fired, the British start losing their ships, until and unless they stop interfering with US ships.

Not even the most die hard hawks in the UK government want a war with the USA in 1916, and so when the US wants to freely trade with all of Europe once the Entente can no longer continue to buy all we want/need to sell, what happens? First will come the economic sanctions, then trade restrictions, boycotts, embargo's, and then at least, seizures of Entente shipping. If the Entente wants to declare war on the USA for not sitting idly by and having her rights trampled upon...

just to trade with a nation that has been killing its citizens with u-boats and very publicly razed Belgium

How many US merchantmen are sunk by u boats, vs seized/turned back by British warships? U boats might be forgiven for mistaking an American ship for a hostile ship, especially when the Entente flies the US flag on their ships, but when you actually board a US ship and still knowingly interfere?

And even if it does slightly improve saying 'Jam tomorrow maybe' to the population isn't going to fill already empty stomachs

You and I have had this conversation before, you still keep coming back with a whole lot of nothing, other than empty rhetoric, and anti-german bias, which anyone that cares to read for themselves can look up if they don't already know. If you can provide facts to back your narrative, that the Germans MUST attack in 1918 in a world where the USA isn't fighting against them, I'm all ears.

Although I have alluded to the freedom the CP armies can have to let 10,000's of their troops go home on leave once Russia folds, I've not yet pointed out that the horses tied up on the eastern front can go back to agricultural work now as well, so how much more food is going to get planted with 100,000's of horses now working on crops? No US entry in the war by itself takes a huge load off the CP, and we are not even mentioning how much earlier than OTL this takes place.

 

[NoMommsen]

... With Russia out, does the 1917 Ukrainian harvest feed the CP, or does that start with the 1918 crop? ...

ITTL no US of A in the war -> no Elihu Root mission to Russia -> no US of A loan to the Kerenski provisional goverment -> Russia leaving the war earlier (simply due to the lack of money and material) -> earlier access to ukrainian/russian grain from the 1917 harvest already.

@Naval Aviation Fan ... you've ninjad me😁

Either way, everyone knows that the food situation is improving despite the best efforts of the British blockade to starve them into submission, so all they have to do is just hang on.

In what regards was the food situation improving for germany?...

Even IOTL the food situation of autumn 1918 actually WAS better as i.e. during the 'turnip winter of 1916/17 and autumn 1917 due to a better harvest, better organisation of domestic agricultur and ... some influx of ukrainian agricultural products already.

... but likely you're taking then US of A standard at the minimum to be provided ...

 

[Riain]

Even IOTL the food situation of autumn 1918 actually WAS better as i.e. during the 'turnip winter of 1916/17 and autumn 1917 due to a better harvest, better organisation of domestic agricultur and ... some influx of ukrainian agricultural products already.

This is an important point, if this year was better than last year, and next year looks like it will be better again things don't have to be rainbows and lollipops, just a noticeable improvement on what has passed.

 

[Crazyduck156]

Ok, once again, here we go...
When was the low point for the CP, because of the British blockade?
Turnip Winter 0f 1916-1917.
After that, historically the US DoW's the CP in April, 1917, but that doesn't happen here, does it? The worst was already over, before the USA entered the war.

This is historical fact, and predates the PoD, check?

That was also locked in a life or death struggle with the world's second largest navy, you mean?

Also, the US doesn't even have to enter the war against the Entente, as they can just start seizing Entente merchantmen in American waters, as a direct reprisal for seizures of US vassals attempting to trade with Germany, and by American Waters, I'm not talking just US territorial waters, but all western hemispherical waters, as in North American, Central American, and South American waters, mind you. Without a shot being fired, the British start losing their ships, until and unless they stop interfering with US ships.

Not even the most die hard hawks in the UK government want a war with the USA in 1916, and so when the US wants to freely trade with all of Europe once the Entente can no longer continue to buy all we want/need to sell, what happens? First will come the economic sanctions, then trade restrictions, boycotts, embargo's, and then at least, seizures of Entente shipping. If the Entente wants to declare war on the USA for not sitting idly by and having her rights trampled upon...

How many US merchantmen are sunk by u boats, vs seized/turned back by British warships? U boats might be forgiven for mistaking an American ship for a hostile ship, especially when the Entente flies the US flag on their ships, but when you actually board a US ship and still knowingly interfere?

You and I have had this conversation before, you still keep coming back with a whole lot of nothing, other than empty rhetoric, and anti-german bias, which anyone that cares to read for themselves can look up if they don't already know. If you can provide facts to back your narrative, that the Germans MUST attack in 1918 in a world where the USA isn't fighting against them, I'm all ears.

Although I have alluded to the freedom the CP armies can have to let 10,000's of their troops go home on leave once Russia folds, I've not yet pointed out that the horses tied up on the eastern front can go back to agricultural work now as well, so how much more food is going to get planted with 100,000's of horses now working on crops? No US entry in the war by itself takes a huge load off the CP, and we are not even mentioning how much earlier than OTL this takes place.

I dont really remember talking to you before but if you say so.

And by 1917/18 the naval struggle between the HSF and GF was pretty much decided. The RN has sorted out most of the issues with the shells and poor handling with the blastdoors that allowed the HSF to survive jutland, minus a certain signal officer ofc. If the fleets meet again the HSF is being sent to the bottom or straight back to port.

The blockade still strangled the life out of germany in 1918 even after they took Ukraine and while the 17 winter was the worst, taking a step up from awful to still bad isn't going to warm the hearts of the german people, not when the British citizenry have only just started proper rationing. And then if the war goes on they have to survive through the winter of 18 and then 19

You say the entente will be demoralised because of no USA means no hope for them, to which the obvious question is where is the hope for germany? No one is coming to help them, the Austrians and ottomans are failing, beating russian didn't turn out to be the silver bullet they hoped, and their social fabric is splitting apart at the seams.
Its the entente that benefit from the waiting game even without US (although not as much as with the US ofc), germany is suffering from the blockade and the entente can still call upon colonial manpower if they need to

And another aspect is why would the US would do any of that, and risk being dragged into a war (even if it is remote chance) against an alliance they were supporting only months before? A far more likely case will them just saying a pox on both your houses rather than trying to break the blockade because they just desperately want frankfurters or something

 

[Riain]

1917-18 is a huge span of time, a quarter to almost a half of the entire duration, a lot happened in that time but it feels as if people are mashing it all into one blob of simultaneous events.

For example IOTL Russia had a revolution in March, before the US DoW and another in November which put up the leaders who instigated the armistice with Germany and in between was the Kerensky offensive,the Nivelle offensive and Paschendale, all of which were failures. Would these 3 offensives occur if the US hadn't declared war? I think they would have more or less.

 

[NoMommsen]

... in between was the Kerensky offensive,the Nivelle offensive and Paschendale, all of which were failures. Would these 3 offensives occur if the US hadn't declared war? I think they would have more or less.

Paschendaele and Nivelle ... might have happened with Britain ... and France whatever it still had scraping together of finances and material resources available without credit in the US anymore.
Kerensky ... I would see as arguable at least. During the Root mission in June 1917 the provisional goverment got a rather clear message :

no fight, no money​

what likely had quite a convincing influence on Kerensky IOTL contrary to Brusilovs doubts.

The blockade still strangled the life out of germany in 1918 ...

... lesser and lesser due to other sources

even after they took Ukraine and while the 17 winter was the worst, taking a step up from awful to still bad isn't going to warm the hearts of the german people, not when the British citizenry have only just started proper rationing.

... well ... mostly people look in dire situations where they might be taken.
The situation for the germans was getting better... ("Ooh, there's more to eat than last autumn , can only get better.)
The situation for the british was getting worse ... (Ooh, there's less to eat than last autumn , can only get worse.)
People don't look at what some other have or have not, only how the situation on their own table changes.

..., to which the obvious question is where is the hope for germany? No one is coming to help them, the Austrians and ottomans are failing, beating russian didn't turn out to be the silver bullet they hoped, ...

you're 'hindsighteering' from OTL ... and this is an ATL ... which would likely see also a different 'Brest-Litovsk' at a differing point of time with all the butterflies comming from it.
And even BL of OTL was enough of a hope for ... 'Germany' to keep on going.

... and their social fabric is splitting apart at the seams.

I would rather call it 'changing' or even better 'developing' but splitting.
Society was developing towards a more social and democratic 'fabric' with more participation of trade unions and parliamentary politicians on an almost quarterly pace.

Its the entente that benefit from the waiting game even without US (although not as much as with the US ofc), germany is suffering from the blockade ...

... simply repeating anOTL dwindeling effective fact doesn't make it more effective ITTL

and the entente can still call upon colonial manpower if they need to ...

... yeah, the Indians, Paschtuns, Boers and Inuit were feverishly looking forbeing put into the well known meat grinder. ...

 

[minhow]

No USA entry into the war, no reinforcements arriving in France, French moral plummets, no hopes in Russia that American troops will break open the front in the west.
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, March 3rd, 1918. This only was delayed as long as it was because of the US entry into the war, without which, Russia exits earlier.

Would a neutral US (indirectly) avoid the communist revolution in Russia? This is considering an early russian withdrawn from war.

 

[bguy]

Also, the US doesn't even have to enter the war against the Entente, as they can just start seizing Entente merchantmen in American waters, as a direct reprisal for seizures of US vassals attempting to trade with Germany, and by American Waters, I'm not talking just US territorial waters, but all western hemispherical waters, as in North American, Central American, and South American waters, mind you. Without a shot being fired, the British start losing their ships, until and unless they stop interfering with US ships.

Seizing Entente ships, especially when they are not in US ports or US territorial waters is an act of war against the Entente. How would Wilson ever get the support for such a policy?

Not even the most die hard hawks in the UK government want a war with the USA in 1916, and so when the US wants to freely trade with all of Europe once the Entente can no longer continue to buy all we want/need to sell, what happens? First will come the economic sanctions, then trade restrictions, boycotts, embargo's, and then at least, seizures of Entente shipping. If the Entente wants to declare war on the USA for not sitting idly by and having her rights trampled upon...

Where would Wilson get the support for economic sanctions, trade restrictions, boycotts, or embargoes against the Entente nations? Even before World War 1 the US did vastly more trade with the Entente nations than it did with the Central Powers nations and the "Near Neutral" nations (Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland).

US exports in 1913:
to the Entente nations: 1.32 billion dollars.
to the Central Powers nations: 377 million dollars,
to the Near Neutrals: 165 million dollars.

US imports in 1913:
from the Entente nations: 737 million dollars
from the Central Powers nations: 225 million dollars
from the Near Neutrals: 84 million dollars

Thus even if you add US trade to the "Near Neutral" nations to the value of US trade with the Central Powers that still means the US was exporting and importing almost two and a half times as much to the Entente as it was to the Central Powers and Near Neutrals combined in 1913. And US trade with the Entente nations skyrocketed during World War 1 with US exports to the Entente nations being worth three times as much in 1916 ($4.251 billion) than they were in 1913.

(All numbers taken from a chart in the JSTOR article "Our Trade in the Great War" by Mark Jefferson

https://www.jstor.org/stable/207691?seq=1

So given that the US's trade with the Entente nations is and always has been far, far more valuable than its trade with the Central Powers and Near Neutral nations why would the US risk jeopardizing its trade with the Entente nations to protect its trade with the Central Powers? Economically that would be insane, and I can't see how Wilson could ever get such measures passed in the US Congress.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Seizing Entente ships, especially when they are not in US ports or US territorial waters is an act of war against the Entente. How would Wilson ever get the support for such a policy?

The British were seizing US ships in international waters, and in years gone by, that had led to war (1812), so this isn't something that was unbelievable nor outrageous, but the British treading on American rights, very badly, and for a prolonged time.

Where would Wilson get the support for economic sanctions, trade restrictions, boycotts, or embargoes against the Entente nations?

The same congress that had just already passed the Naval Act of 1916? No matter any other considerations, voting to build a navy bigger/badder than the United Kingdom's own Royal Navy, especially from an American government know to always resist pressures to build a strong standing armed forces.

This thread is NOT otl, remember, and the PoD is the no USA DoW on the Central Powers.

The effrontery of the British blockade, and walking all over American rights, and the seizure of US merchant vessels in international waters was historically prevented from escalating (into a trade war) by the Entente being willing (and able) to buy everything themselves and then the US entry into the war, on April 2nd, 1917. Once the Entente is no longer compensating the United States for interfering with our trade as a neutral nation by buying 'everything', what happens then?

And keep in mind this quote from Wiki:

President Wilson told Col. Edward House that he was anxious to hasten the day when the U.S. Navy was larger than the United Kingdom's, proclaiming "Let us build a Navy bigger than hers and do what we please."

This clearly sets the tone, and it isn't just President Wilson, but the whole US government that is fed up with the whole situation, and willing to spend the funds to outbuild the British to create a permanent navy that surpasses the RN, to guarantee US rights to trade with whom we will.

 

[Riain]

The same congress that had just already passed the Naval Act of 1916? No matter any other considerations, voting to build a navy bigger/badder than the United Kingdom's own Royal Navy, especially from an American government know to always resist pressures to build a strong standing armed forces.

Not just Navy, they also signed the Defence Act in mid 1916, doubling the size of the Regular Army and quadrupling the National Guard by 1921. As soon as this was signed the entire National Guard's 12 divisions were mobilised and deployed along the southern border in support of the Punitive Expedition, by April 1917 the US Army/NG was vastly better than it was a mere 8 months earlier.

 

[bguy]

The British were seizing US ships in international waters, and in years gone by, that had led to war (1812), so this isn't something that was unbelievable nor outrageous, but the British treading on American rights, very badly, and for a prolonged time.

Yes, but the British were seizing US ships as part of a blockade which was accepted under international law at the time. (And significantly the British were compensating the US for the cargoes they seized.) That is all very different than the US seizing British ships. US seizures would not be part of any lawful blockade (since the US isn't at war with anyone), and thus would constitute an act of war in the way the British seizing US ships pursuant to an internationally recognized blockade is not.

The same congress that had just already passed the Naval Act of 1916? No matter any other considerations, voting to build a navy bigger/badder than the United Kingdom's own Royal Navy, especially from an American government know to always resist pressures to build a strong standing armed forces.

Why do you think the Naval Act was directed at the British? It seems far more likely it was primarily meant as a warning to Germany (who had after all declared unrestricted submarine warfare just the previous year.)

And anyway it's one thing to ask Congress to support building a big navy (which will provide jobs for their constituents and which even Anglophillic congressmen and senators can support since it could be used against Germany (or Japan), but it's something else entirely to expect Congress to support trade sanctions against the Entente nations since those will be very damaging to the American economy and will definitely not get support from any of the pro-British congressmen and senators.

This thread is NOT otl, remember, and the PoD is the no USA DoW on the Central Powers.

Sure, but the US not declaring war on Germany doesn't necessarily mean US relations with the Entente nations have collapsed. No American DoW could come about simply from the Germans refraining from sending the Zimmerman Telegram and restarting USW.

The effrontery of the British blockade, and walking all over American rights, and the seizure of US merchant vessels in international waters was historically prevented from escalating (into a trade war) by the Entente being willing (and able) to buy everything themselves and then the US entry into the war, on April 2nd, 1917. Once the Entente is no longer compensating the United States for interfering with our trade as a neutral nation by buying 'everything', what happens then?

Why would the Entente stop compensating the US for the seized cargoes? The expense of paying for those shipments is trivial compared to the value the Entente gets in keeping the US willing to acquiesce to the very expansive blockade the Entente is operating.

And keep in mind this quote from Wiki:


This clearly sets the tone, and it isn't just President Wilson, but the whole US government that is fed up with the whole situation, and willing to spend the funds to outbuild the British to create a permanent navy that surpasses the RN, to guarantee US rights to trade with whom we will.

Even if Wilson felt that way, it would be many years before a naval buildup that starts in 1916 would give the US a fleet more powerful than the British. (IIRC it took about 3 years to build a dreadnought, so ships that start construction in 1916 won't be available until 1919 at the earliest, and of course the US isn't going to be able to start building all the dreadnoughts authorized by the 1916 Naval Act at once.) And of course both Congress (and the British) would know that the US naval buildup would not bear fruit for many years, so I don't think Congress authorized the Naval Act in the expectation that it would change British behavior.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

Yes, but the British were seizing US ships as part of a blockade which was accepted under international law at the time. (And significantly the British were compensating the US for the cargoes they seized.) That is all very different than the US seizing British ships. US seizures would not be part of any lawful blockade (since the US isn't at war with anyone), and thus would constitute an act of war in the way the British seizing US ships pursuant to an internationally recognized blockade is not.

A close blockade of German ports, for ships carrying war materials, sure.
A distant blockade of German ports, for ships carrying war materials, not so sure.
A distant blockade of German ports, for ships not carrying war materials, No.
A distant blockade, used as an excuse to interfere with neutral to neutral trade, no excuses.

Interference with US trade, a neutral nation, with other neutral nations, far exceeded legale norms for war materials, let alone foodstuffs.

Why do you think the Naval Act was directed at the British? It seems far more likely it was primarily meant as a warning to Germany (who had after all declared unrestricted submarine warfare just the previous year.)

Why all this desperate dancing around? You read the quote about President Wilson, did you not? That puts paid to your spin, doesn't it?

Sure, but the US not declaring war on Germany doesn't necessarily mean US relations with the Entente nations have collapsed. No American DoW could come about simply from the Germans refraining from sending the Zimmerman Telegram and restarting USW.

Why would the Entente stop compensating the US for the seized cargoes? The expense of paying for those shipments is trivial compared to the value the Entente gets in keeping the US willing to acquiesce to the very expansive blockade the Entente is operating.

Because they were broke?
This act was signed into law on Aug 29th, 1916. At that time the Entente was still buying everything, and still the American government went with this response, so what happens when they stop being able to pay for everything , in April, 1917?

For that matter, perhaps it would be better for this threads discussion if, instead of an American DoW being simply poofed away, perhaps a definitive action stating that US troops will not be coming to fight (for either side), and that interference with neutral to neutral trade restrictions were going to also be coming to an end.

Something like this would make clear to France, Italy, and Russia, the the USA has had enough, and that they need to be wrapping up their war, and soon.

If such a proclamation were to replace the historical DoW, how long until the first domino (Russia) falls, and then Italy and France, and the war draws to a close like the OP stipulated?

Even if Wilson felt that way, it would be many years before a naval buildup that starts in 1916 would give the US a fleet more powerful than the British. (IIRC it took about 3 years to build a dreadnought, so ships that start construction in 1916 won't be available until 1919 at the earliest, and of course the US isn't going to be able to start building all the dreadnoughts authorized by the 1916 Naval Act at once.) And of course both Congress (and the British) would know that the US naval buildup would not bear fruit for many years,

As I understand it, the construction was not supposed to begin until 1919, for completion in 1923.

So I don't think Congress authorized the Naval Act in the expectation that it would change British behavior.

Of course they did! There cannot be any doubt about that at all, the only question that remains, why didn't they embark upon the construction plans authorized immediately, as opposed to more than 2 years hence, other than to give the British time to conclude their war before this had to start?

Although I enjoy this, I have to feel that we are side tracking this thread a bit.

So, just a reminder...

In a scenario in which the United States does not enter the war and the war between the Entente and Germany ends in an without condicions peace treaty, what happens in Russia? can the Bolsheviks expel the Germans? Whites win with German support? the Russian Empire split into a thousand pieces?

I mis-remembered, the PoD isn't just the Americans don't enter the war, but that the war in the west ends in a white peace.

 

[CHKeeley]

Why all this desperate dancing around? You read the quote about President Wilson, did you not? That puts paid to your spin, doesn't it?

I don’t think that quote proves much of anything. Luckily there’s always a good paper to be found in times like these! I found the following that I will reference: “Building a Navy ‘Second to None’: The U.S. Naval Act of 1916, American Attitudes Towards Great Britain, and the First World War”

It takes time discussing Anglo-American relations and puts the quote you’re using (from the Wikipedia I assume?) into context:

I think the opening lines make it quite clear that Anglo-American relations were at no point seriously threatened by the blockade even if it caused some consternation and annoyance. Political sentiments were in favor of the Entente, and the U.S. was by and large willing to put up with the nuisances of the blockade. It seems to me that there’s really little chance of the potential war you speculate about. The strongest advocates for a larger navy were not anti-British hawks as you seem to imply, but instead generally bro-British in orientation. And the measures the British took in enforcing the blockade on American shipping received relatively little outrage in Washington even if it was present. The second paragraph contextualizes Wilson’s words. His motives seem unclear, but it seems like he was concerned primarily with shoring up American naval power in general and used the largest navy as a yardstick by which to measure that power. They are described as enthusiastic comments which are interesting in their sentiment but ultimately not indicative of any larger anti-Anglo alignment or intentions on the part of Wilson.

I don’t think there is much evidence at all to sustain the claim that America would actually go to war with the British over the blockade.

 

[Naval Aviation Fan]

I don’t think that quote proves much of anything. Luckily there’s always a good paper to be found in times like these! I found the following that I will reference: “Building a Navy ‘Second to None’: The U.S. Naval Act of 1916, American Attitudes Towards Great Britain, and the First World War”

snip

Once I get back from the hospital today, I'll start reading up on this, but am leaving within the hour, so until then. My thanks for bringing this to my attention!