Germany winning WWI

So can the POD be that Germany appointed somebody marginally more competent than Zimmermann, and thus the telegram is either not intercepted (and quietly ignored by Mexico) or, as suggested before, not sent at all?
Or was there a clear order from Berlin to send the damn telegram no matter the circumstances?


Nar. Zimmermann was of a slightly lower class origins than most Germans of his rank, and as is often the way, sensitivity about this tended to make him "more Junker than the Junkers". It was all his own work.

Thje best way to avoid interception is for the Telegram to not be a telegram at all. I understand that it was originally meant to be carried to America on the German merchant submarine Deutschland, but for some reason that voyage was cancelled. Another way would have been if Zeppelin technology had been a bit more advanced, so the note could have been carried on an airship.
 
Last edited:
The lusitania was in 1915 and was one of 3 ships sunk before unrestricted subwarfare was called off for the first time. It was NOT the reason for war. Wilson, despite the claims of him wanting to go to war, was really not a war monger. He favored the Entente, which is incredibly obvious. But the major reason that he went to war was over the resumption of unrestricted subwarfare. The Zimmerman note, which was done behind Wilson's back after he let the Germans use the American diplomatic wire to keep contact with their embassy's abroad (something I don't understand why some other posters claim was illegal), which Zimmerman then used to try to create an alliance against the US. Wilson saw this a major stab in the back, and rather rightly asked to go to war. But it only accelerated the time line for war, not caused it.

Quite. Indeed, by one of those ironies, Germany provoked Wilson to war at a time when he was less pro-Allied than he had ever been since the whole thing started. Arguments about British "blacklisting" of US firms with links to the Central Powers, and other blockade measures, had brought Anglo-US relations to an all time low, so much so that an intelligent man like Colonel House thought war between America and the Allies to be a serious possibility!! Wilson had upset his Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, by taking no action over the sinkling in late 1916 of the merchantmen Marina and Arabia, because both of these were armed. Since by now the vast majority of Allied ships were either armed or in process of being, this was close to abandoning his stand against the u-boat war as far as Allied (though not neutral) vessels were concerned. He and Lansing were still swapping memos about it on Jan 31, when Ambassador Bernstorff rendered it all moot by announcing full USW against all ships regardless of flag.

This was the crucial difference between 1917 and what had gone before. Hitherto, all American victims of the u-boat had been travelling on Allied vessels. However, from Feb 1917 even American ships were deemed "fair game" and several were sunk in March, three going down on the 18th alone. With America's own ships coming under attack (and in some cases being armed for self-defence) a virtual state of undeclared war already existed. It would have been diffcult enough to avoid formal hostilities even without the ZT, but that surely put the tin lid on it.

Now, Germany saw the US supplying the Entente with money and munitions as de facto belligerency.

Another little "joke" is that this happened just when British imports from the US were being cut back due to financial constraints. Britain had run out of securities etc in the US to serve as collateral on loans raised there. Since unsecured loans were not on offer while America remained neutral, this drastically reduced Allied purchasing power there, and but for US entry into the War, the halting of loans might have reduced British imports more than the u-boats did.


And basically, there was a culture of gamblers that saw it as a last ditch effort or go under. However, no one had the balls to challenge the bullshit 'study' that the navy had done about the effects of the submarine campaign. Bethman-Hollweg had no choice but to go along with the effort, because he was trying to save his political career. The German people had been lied to and constantly told the Submarine was the wonder weapon that would win the war. They thought politics and weak wills held them back, when in fact they were not at useful and the US was a much more dangerous enemy. Bethman-Hollweg was a weak-willed person, because he only thought about his career instead of doing what was right for the nation. Indeed that was the problem of much of the nation's leadership. And it led them to ruin in WW1 and later WW2.

And because there was no obvious alternative. The Russian Revolution was still in the future, and to all appearence 1917 seemed likely to be 1916 only worse, with the Russian army getting steadily better armed and equipped, while the British would be larger and more experienced. It looked as if Germany was doomed to defeat. If they didn't look the naval gift horse in the mouth, it was because they were getting desperate.

In fairness, they weren't the only ones to see it this way. When Admiral Sims reached Britain in April 1917, Lord Jellicoe told him that unless some way could be found of defeating the u-boats, then Britain would have to surrender by November 1 - only three months later than the Germans' own calculation.

This also explains their recklessness about provoking the US. As they saw things, if USW succeeded, they would win the war in 1917, while if not they would lose it in 1917 - in either case long before America could intervene effectively. Like a lot of people on this message board they only looked at the number of soldiers America could field, and ignored the naval and especially economic strength which US support would bring to the Entente - not to mention the effect on morale.
 
allowing Germany to capture Paris and thus declare victory after the June 1918 offensive. Do you think this is enough to keep the US out of the war? Or are stronger changes needed to keep America out?

Germany wins WW1 scenarios are always welcome. :cool:

But be careful by carrying the Germans into Paris all too quickly. I wouldn't expect that to happen. Rather go for complete exhaustion and a negotiated peace in the West. Always remember: if the treaties in the east survive the end of the war and the war in the West is not lost, then the CP win.

Several posters here are already helping in making US neutrality plausible. The telegram won't be enough.
 
I have considered taking out the telegram itself from history-even without hindsight, that plan was a pretty stupid idea (get Mexico to invade the US? Really?). One possibility-Pancho Villa takes a bullet during his first cross-border raid, and dies. The Mexican revolution stays within Mexico, and Zimmerman does not get the bizarre idea that the US is about to be tied up in a Mexican war, so he never bothers sending the telegram and focuses on some other strange but not completely destructive idea-perhaps having a second go at arming Irish revolutionaries?

As for American involvement in the war, butterflies of a world without a telegram could keep them from entering. The Germans might stop their unrestricted submarine warfare a second time after a warning from Woodrow Wilson-if they broke the British blockade, they would probably be willing to temporarily suspend hostilities on American request, at least until the British began a blockade again. This only has to keep Wilson from justifying a war until the Germans force peace negotiations-the US and Germany may have bad postwar relations, but they won't be direct enemies.

Although American forces weren't directly involved in stopping the offensive, I think it could still succeed ITTL. Remember that since the Americans have not entered the war, the Allies are suffering more from exhaustion. It's even possible that the ANZAC soldiers who met the German offensive took the bullets that in OTL would have hit the first American troops. I am trying to get a German victory albeit a conservative one.
 

Blair152

Banned
Hello all,

I recently wrote out a timeline where Germany wins WWI, drastically altering the shape of the modern world (and perhaps the ancient world, depending on how revisionist German historians are).
My POD was that the British don't intercept the Zimmerman telegram, and so the US doesn't enter the war, allowing Germany to capture Paris and thus declare victory after the June 1918 offensive. Do you think this is enough to keep the US out of the war? Or are stronger changes needed to keep America out?
It was possible. Nothing ASB here. Keeping America out of World War I would be the key. The best way to keep America out would be to make it
hard for Wilson to declare war on Germany. The British had intercepted, and decoded, by the British. Not having it intercepted is the key.
 
It was possible. Nothing ASB here. Keeping America out of World War I would be the key. The best way to keep America out would be to make it
hard for Wilson to declare war on Germany. The British had intercepted, and decoded, by the British. Not having it intercepted is the key.


Churchill probably had the best idea. In The World Crisis, he raises the possibility of the Russian Revolution coming a few months earlier, before the Germans had made their decision for USW. That greatly improves Bethmann's chances of winning his fight against it. And no USW pretty certainly means no Zimmermann Telegram.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Hello all,

I recently wrote out a timeline where Germany wins WWI, drastically altering the shape of the modern world (and perhaps the ancient world, depending on how revisionist German historians are).
My POD was that the British don't intercept the Zimmerman telegram, and so the US doesn't enter the war, allowing Germany to capture Paris and thus declare victory after the June 1918 offensive. Do you think this is enough to keep the US out of the war? Or are stronger changes needed to keep America out?

First of all, no Zimmermann telegram won't be enough to keep the US out. No unlimited submarine warfare would be the best POD. If American ships weren't sunk during the spring of 1917, combined with no need for a Zimmermann telegram since German- US relations were not drowning down the sink, you could get the US to stay neutral.

For the Germans to win? I would rather try to get them to win early in 1915 or 16, would be easier. In 1917 the British North Sea blockade was hurting the German economy badly. Britain had complete control of the seas, and even if Germany with luck could knock France out (and they'd need luck to reach Paris, a couple of victories would not be sufficient, you'd probably need some new mass desertions from the French army too) there'd still be Britain, that still would be able to starve out the Germans by blocking the seas.
 
First of all, no Zimmermann telegram won't be enough to keep the US out. No unlimited submarine warfare would be the best POD. If American ships weren't sunk during the spring of 1917, combined with no need for a Zimmermann telegram since German- US relations were not drowning down the sink, you could get the US to stay neutral.

For the Germans to win? I would rather try to get them to win early in 1915 or 16, would be easier. In 1917 the British North Sea blockade was hurting the German economy badly. Britain had complete control of the seas, and even if Germany with luck could knock France out (and they'd need luck to reach Paris, a couple of victories would not be sufficient, you'd probably need some new mass desertions from the French army too) there'd still be Britain, that still would be able to starve out the Germans by blocking the seas.


Not if Germany controls the whole continent, as she will if France falls. People in the occupied countries may go hungry in that situation, but the Germans won't.

Anyway, if there's no Western Front any more, an isolated Britain won't be anything like the huge market for American goods that the Entente had hitherto been - the profit from which had made it worth America's while to tolerate the Allied Blockade of the CPs. If we try to cut off their trade with the entire continent, how long will that be tolerated?
 
It should also be noted that there were those in America who opposed war to the bitter end - despite u-boats, Zimmerman Telegram and everything. One such was the Speaker of the House of Representatives, no less, who had narrowly missed out on the Presidency in 1912. Put someone like that in the White House, and the ZT may not be considered necessary.
 
there'd still be Britain, that still would be able to starve out the Germans by blocking the seas.
I don't think Britain would keep fighting after France falls. They'd seek a peace strongly on their terms (no reparations, no or minimal territorial concessions in the colonies, etc) but would not be insane enough to continue a lost war (especially since, as it's been pointed out, their blockades can be overcome by U-boats)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I don't think Britain would keep fighting after France falls. They'd seek a peace strongly on their terms (no reparations, no or minimal territorial concessions in the colonies, etc) but would not be insane enough to continue a lost war (especially since, as it's been pointed out, their blockades can be overcome by U-boats)
But to keep the US out Germany can'r rely on uboats. Acctually I think no US participation would probably mean negotiated peace (since I acctually doubt the Germans would reach Paris). The peace could mean Germany losing her colonial empire, the return of 1914 borders in the West and giving Germany a free hand in former Russian territory.
 
Top