Germany doesn't resume unrestricted submarine warfare

[Andrew Hudson]

The reason given for the entry of the United States into the First World War was the resumption on unrestricted submarine warfare aggravated by trhe Zinnerman cable. Germany commencted unrestricted submarine warfare in 1915 almost bringing the United States into the war then abandoned it towards the end of 1915 following the sinking of an Italian passenger ship carrying American citizens.

At the end of January 1917 the Kaiser singed an order for unrestricted submarine warfare to resume. Shortly afterwards President Wilson broke off diplomatic relations leading chancellor Bethmann Hollweg to remark that "Germany is finished". However what if Bethmann-Hollweg had prevailed against the militarists in his cabinet? What if he had prevailed in 1915? There would have been no Zinnerman cable and no reason for America to enter the war. Russia would collapse in 1917 and there would have been a stalemate

 

[Mikestone8]

Quite agree about it keeping the US out of war.

Not so sure about the stalemate. The 1918 offensives were a very close run thing even OTL., and an Entente without US support is going to be weaker in all sorts of ways. More likely an outright CP victory, at least on the continent. Britain may continue for a time, but is far more worn down than in 1940, so it will be a bad peace.

 

[wietze]

No US entry in the war means entente defeat.

by 1917 the british (who were pretty much funding the entente war effort by then) were running out of collateral for loans.
No us in the war means no unsecured loans, hence no money.
so by mid 1917, maybe autumn 1917 the entente will run out of funds.
and keeping the war effort going will become very very hard.

 

[BlondieBC]

No US entry in the war means entente defeat.

by 1917 the british (who were pretty much funding the entente war effort by then) were running out of collateral for loans.
No us in the war means no unsecured loans, hence no money.
so by mid 1917, maybe autumn 1917 the entente will run out of funds.
and keeping the war effort going will become very very hard.

Agreed. It means a Entente defeat with a negotiated peace with the UK. Germany lacks the navy to take the UK. Germany keeps somewhere between front lines and B-L treaty lines in east. France loses big, but we it can go a lot of ways with details. UK has choice to trade colonial concessions (giving back stuff, allowing Germany to gain French or Belgium colonies) for concessions in low countries and to help out France.

 

[Josephus]

It won't change anything. The US will find or manufacture another cause to go to war. At that time, US industrialists were too involved in Entente armaments, and it was too profitable to stop, and they would scream bloody murder to their creatures in Washington if they stood to lose all that money.

 

[zoomar]

I'm not convinced the Central Powers would win WW1. More than anything else, it was unrestricted submarine warfare that almost brought Britaiin to its knees, and for Germany to really "win" WW1, Britain must be knocked out of the war, or at least settle with Germany. If Germans play by prize rules, they immediately lose the battle of the atlantic, Britain imports whatever it wants, and Germany slowly starves while England doesn't.

Also, British control of the atlantic and atlantic cables means that the US tends to hear only the Allied side of things, making the US (except for anglophobes) increasingly see those baby killing, zeppelin raiding, poison gas using Huns as the "bad guy" and potential future threat. I don't think the US would actually enter the war, but a 1916 "Arsenal of Democracy" might occur, which might tip the scales anyway.

 

[zoomar]

It won't change anything. The US will find or manufacture another cause to go to war. At that time, US industrialists were too involved in Entente armaments, and it was too profitable to stop, and they would scream bloody murder to their creatures in Washington if they stood to lose all that money.

This, however, I completely disagree with. Too much capilatist conspiracy fantasy stuff.

 

[Orry]

No US entry in the war means entente defeat..
by 1917 the british (who were pretty much funding the entente war effort by then) were running out of collateral for loans.
No us in the war means no unsecured loans, hence no money.
so by mid 1917, maybe autumn 1917 the entente will run out of funds.
and keeping the war effort going will become very very hard.

Hard for sure - maybe very hard but a lot easier than the situation the Germans faced. Would the French, and maybe more importantly, the British civilian front be prepared to make the sacrifice required? I think they would - but the consequences would be an even harder peace on Germany from an even more embittered Allies.

 

[Mikestone8]

It won't change anything. The US will find or manufacture another cause to go to war. At that time, US industrialists were too involved in Entente armaments, and it was too profitable to stop, and they would scream bloody murder to their creatures in Washington if they stood to lose all that money.

There is not the slightest evidence for this. As of Jan 1917 US relations with the Entente (and particularly with GB) were worse than with Germany, due to rising American anger against British blacklists and other measures.

As for arms sales, these would cease anyway when the war ended, and from the Wilson Administration's pov, it would be better for any economic repercussions to come in 1917, leaving time for a recovery before 1920, rather than a couple of years later in the runup to the next election.

Incidentally, the House of Morgan, Britain's principal bankers in the US, had supported Hughes in the 1916 contest, so Wilson didn't owe them a thing.

 

[Mikestone8]

I'm not convinced the Central Powers would win WW1. More than anything else, it was unrestricted submarine warfare that almost brought Britaiin to its knees, and for Germany to really "win" WW1, Britain must be knocked out of the war, or at least settle with Germany. If Germans play by prize rules, they immediately lose the battle of the atlantic, Britain imports whatever it wants, and Germany slowly starves while England doesn't.

The U-boat war would have been just as effective even without declaring USW. The number of sinkings had been rising steadily in the months before USW was announced, and would almost certainly have continued to do so even without it.

Certainly, it would have done Germany no harm to stick to Prize rules against US merchant ships, as any torpedo not fired at a US vessel would have been available to use on a British or other Allied one, so that the total tonnage sunk would have been little changed. And with America remaining neutral, a lot more food and other supplies could have made it to the CPs via Holland and Scandinavia, since it was US belligerency that made the blockade watertight in that theatre. Meantime, Allied imports are dropping fast due to the drying up of American loans (see below) so things are tipping Germany's way in that area too..

Also, British control of the atlantic and atlantic cables means that the US tends to hear only the Allied side of things, making the US (except for anglophobes) increasingly see those baby killing, zeppelin raiding, poison gas using Huns as the "bad guy" and potential future threat. I don't think the US would actually enter the war, but a 1916 "Arsenal of Democracy" might occur, which might tip the scales anyway.

As of Jan 1917 things were going exactly the other way. Britain had used up virtually all the investments in America on which she relied as security for her loans from the US. So no further loans would be forthcoming unless US banks were prepared to make unsecured ones, which the Federal Reserve and the Wilson Administration (even its pro-Entente members like Lansing) were dead set against as an unacceptable financial risk. There are quite a few books on this subject, but the relevant chapters of Patrick Devlin's Too Proud to Fight give as good an account as any.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I am fairly certain the US moblization plans, and particulary the US Army plans would continue to suck eggs into the 1920s & 30s. Even with the experience of the Great War Congress underfunded all aspects of preparation, planning, training & every other aspect. OTL it was near impossible for the US Army leaders to do much with a third or quarter the minimum staff budget they needed for real planning. Absent the experience of 1917-18 the Congress and Army would sail through the 1920s & 1930s with still less improvement. If the US somehow becomes in a second European war you would not see anything like the US Army of 1942-45, or even that of 1941. Efforts to create a modern mechanized force of one hundred or even fifty divisions would be take longer with more errors and friction.

The USN would be better off since it had more development funds before 1917, and drew less direct experience from the Great War.

 

[zert]

If the US had not joined the War, do you think they might have taken colonies/territory in lieu of money for loans for the Entente?

 

[Vingilótë]

If the US had not joined the War, do you think they might have taken colonies/territory in lieu of money for loans for the Entente?

Perhaps. Part of the issue is that the Entente actually has very little to offer them. Perhaps some assorted Caribbean islands, or French Polynesia, but America has no interest in Africa, where the bulk of the saleable land would be, and Britain has no power to compel Canada to cede territory to the US (nor would they accede to such a scheme, for that matter). I doubt very much that the money from the sale of some small islands would go very far.

 

[Admiral Matt]

IIRC, the resumption was preemptive. The Germans were well aware that the US was gearing up for war with them since the Zimmerman debacle occurred. Quite naturally they decided to choose the timing according to their interests rather than waiting to be dogpiled.

For Wilson the subs were merely the most convenient excuse available for his chosen policy.

 

[Mikestone8]

IIRC, the resumption was preemptive. The Germans were well aware that the US was gearing up for war with them since the Zimmerman debacle occurred. Quite naturally they decided to choose the timing according to their interests rather than waiting to be dogpiled.

That is the wrong way round. The ZN was sent in the expectation that the introduction of USW would lead to war. Thus it was the decision for USW which caused the ZN, not vice versa.

For Wilson the subs were merely the most convenient excuse available for his chosen policy.

Does it matter what Wilson thought? Only Congress could declare war, and without USW they would never have done so, even had Wilson wished it - which is far from clear.

 

[Mikestone8]

Perhaps. Part of the issue is that the Entente actually has very little to offer them. Perhaps some assorted Caribbean islands, or French Polynesia, but America has no interest in Africa, where the bulk of the saleable land would be, and Britain has no power to compel Canada to cede territory to the US (nor would they accede to such a scheme, for that matter). I doubt very much that the money from the sale of some small islands would go very far.

And given that the population of said islands was largely black, Wilson of all men would have been unlikely to want them. A tiny archipelago next door to an existing US possession was one thing, the entire British and French West Indies quite another.

 

[BlondieBC]

Perhaps. Part of the issue is that the Entente actually has very little to offer them. Perhaps some assorted Caribbean islands, or French Polynesia, but America has no interest in Africa, where the bulk of the saleable land would be, and Britain has no power to compel Canada to cede territory to the US (nor would they accede to such a scheme, for that matter). I doubt very much that the money from the sale of some small islands would go very far.

The Entente (read UK and Dominions) has a lot to offer the USA, but these items would not be for sale/trade. The USA would love trade treaties with the Canadians at hugely favorable terms to the USA (think Cod stocks in east, Salmon in west, ownership of railroad, highly profitable mines.). The USA would love for the Entente to sign off formally giving unlimited support to USA actions in Western Hemisphere. We would love to have Bermuda, Bahamas. We love to have Hong Kong, or more likely, privilege rights to use Hong Kong with UK still paying bills. We love UK to give us some UK rights in Yangtze river basin. Unlimited support for USA policies in China. Privileged access to British Empire. Cut of Anglo-Persian oil company. Unlimited access to UK naval bases in case of war by USA versus third power. etc.

 

[BlondieBC]

If the US had not joined the War, do you think they might have taken colonies/territory in lieu of money for loans for the Entente?

I can sort of imagine USA taking offer in some odd TL, can't imagine the offer being made. I did a Germany win TL, and I carefully looked at things UK could do to bring USA into war with no USW. I could not find anything that the UK would offer that would even begin to tempt USA.

 

[Vingilótë]

The Entente (read UK and Dominions) has a lot to offer the USA, but these items would not be for sale/trade. The USA would love trade treaties with the Canadians at hugely favorable terms to the USA (think Cod stocks in east, Salmon in west, ownership of railroad, highly profitable mines.). The USA would love for the Entente to sign off formally giving unlimited support to USA actions in Western Hemisphere. We would love to have Bermuda, Bahamas. We love to have Hong Kong, or more likely, privilege rights to use Hong Kong with UK still paying bills. We love UK to give us some UK rights in Yangtze river basin. Unlimited support for USA policies in China. Privileged access to British Empire. Cut of Anglo-Persian oil company. Unlimited access to UK naval bases in case of war by USA versus third power. etc.

Well, that's precisely what I meant; I mean, of course, Canada would object harshly to Halifax being sold to the US, and the UK cannot impose such terms on Canada, but IIRC, Bermuda and the Bahamas were directly ruled by the UK still, and I'm not certain why the UK wouldn't, if they were on the verge of losing the biggest war in the past few hundred years, wouldn't consider sacrificing Bermuda, Bahamas, Hong Kong, etc., some trade privileges (especially in the Western Hemisphere, now that everything's been nationalized, and would otherwise be lost to the US, there's little else to lose).

 

[Reader347]

Does it matter what Wilson thought? Only Congress could declare war, and without USW they would never have done so, even had Wilson wished it - which is far from clear.

>
>
>
Yes it matters what Wilson thought. He was an east coast elite type, very pro UK/France. As has been posted, the USA was loaning money and making and selling all kinds of vital supplies (food/artillery/rifles/ammunition, etc.) to those countries. Had he been anti UK/France this trade would have been difficult and smaller.