How hard can the Entente Piss off the USA?

[Vylon Disigma]

As in the title, Do your best to destroy relations between the european entente members and the USA during the course of WW1. The US doesn’t have to join the war or stay neutral, just piss them off the maximum possible degree.
Pissing them off in the peace conference is fine too. Its also fine if its an individual member of the entente and not the whole lot of them.

p.s. please don't make it impossible for the entente to win.

 

[desmirelle]

So you want to eat your cake and still have it for show?

 

[Clandango]

Have them do everything the Germans did.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

So you want to eat your cake and still have it for show?

I don't think.its impossible for the entente to beat the germans minus the USA, in fact I'm confident the odds are in their favour though obviously they'll have to fight the later war quite differently.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

Have them do everything the Germans did.

Unrestricted submarine warfare? Propose invasions of the US? They really don't have a motive do they?

 

[naraic]

Confiscation rather than purchase (at inflated prices) of contraband (ie almost any trade) destined for Germany. Or even purchase at market prices rather than the inflated prices the ships captains claimed of contraband heading for Germany.

Would piss the Americas off, save a lot of British money and probably wouldn't have too big a major long term effect. It's not usw.

France could refuse to provide free artillery to the American divisions arriving on the western front insisting that American government purchase equipment in France or ship it's own across the Atlantic.

In 1918 and 1919 USA was lending money to the UK which was lending the same money to France which France was using to produce artillery which was given as gifts to the AEF.

Slightly ridiculous. Still at this stage America is in the war so it's not likely to change things except save Britain and France some money.

 

[Clandango]

Unrestricted submarine warfare? Propose invasions of the US? They really don't have a motive do they?

There is also the option of arming and training Mexican raiders or funding terrorists blowing up ships and damaging the Statue of Liberty, to avoid things being shipped to Germany. Not that the Germans bought any American stuff. If only because American ships couldn't get there.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

Confiscation rather than purchase (at inflated prices) of contraband (ie almost any trade) destined for Germany. Or even purchase at market prices rather than the inflated prices the ships captains claimed of contraband heading for Germany.

Would piss the Americas off, save a lot of British money and probably wouldn't have too big a major long term effect. It's not usw.

France could refuse to provide free artillery to the American divisions arriving on the western front insisting that American government purchase equipment in France or ship it's own across the Atlantic.

In 1918 and 1919 USA was lending money to the UK which was lending the same money to France which France was using to produce artillery which was given as gifts to the AEF.

Slightly ridiculous. Still at this stage America is in the war so it's not likely to change things except save Britain and France some money.

How much ill will could they generate with something like this, would/could they take the ship's as well?
Would the US be less willing to cooperate on matters like debt repayment or extending lones in the first place?

 

[FillyofDelphi]

A few easy to pull off options...

1. Tighten the screw on the blockade of neutrals/non-belligerents: either have Britain demand certain concessions to crack down on trans-shipping (total oversight of customs, observers on domestic merchant fleets and fishing vessels, ect.) to allow imports of ANYTHING that could be potential war-material for Germany, or at least reduce the "ration" they're allowed for domestic consumption to much lower levels. While the Blockade as an act of war certainly annoys some businessmen, flagrent disreguard for the rights of neutrals would have a far greater effect, especially if it starts producing starvation in Scandinavia

2. Unilaterally (I.E not in line with Germany) prevent American relief for Belgium through on the suspicion/assertion that the Germans will just confiscate the food. Its a pretty widely-supported humanitarian project in the States, and it makes the British and French look kind of hypocritical after harping on about all the hardships Belgium is being forced to endure.

3. Support with troops and weapons Koronov's military coup in Russia, especially if its done preemptively when the Czar's regime is starting to look shakey, for the sake of insuring Russia remains in the war. Nicky's government was seen as the poster child for everything wrong with autocracy, and working so hard to save it would really rub liberty-loving America the wrong way.

These align well with existing war-policy and aren't extreme enough to run the risk of war/embargo from the U.S, which isen't something the Entente governments would be particularly inclined to see happen.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

A few easy to pull off options...

1. Tighten the screw on the blockade of neutrals/non-belligerents: either have Britain demand certain concessions to crack down on trans-shipping (total oversight of customs, observers on domestic merchant fleets and fishing vessels, ect.) to allow imports of ANYTHING that could be potential war-material for Germany, or at least reduce the "ration" they're allowed for domestic consumption to much lower levels. While the Blockade as an act of war certainly annoys some businessmen, flagrent disreguard for the rights of neutrals would have a far greater effect, especially if it starts producing starvation in Scandinavia

2. Unilaterally (I.E not in line with Germany) prevent American relief for Belgium through on the suspicion/assertion that the Germans will just confiscate the food. Its a pretty widely-supported humanitarian project in the States, and it makes the British and French look kind of hypocritical after harping on about all the hardships Belgium is being forced to endure.

3. Support with troops and weapons Koronov's military coup in Russia, especially if its done preemptively when the Czar's regime is starting to look shakey, for the sake of insuring Russia remains in the war. Nicky's government was seen as the poster child for everything wrong with autocracy, and working so hard to save it would really rub liberty-loving America the wrong way.

These align well with existing war-policy and aren't extreme enough to run the risk of war/embargo from the U.S, which isen't something the Entente governments would be particularly inclined to see happen.

How does this effect the US reaction if Germany chooses to resume USW?

 

[FillyofDelphi]

How does this effect the US reaction if Germany chooses to resume USW?

I don't imagine its going to be any BETTER, but that the trend in the U.S is going to be more towards continued isolationism / Fortress Western Hemisphere due to generally being fed up with the extreme tactics of European warfare and their clear disrespect to the rest of the world rather than being exclusively focused towards German Militarism, specifically. Due to butterflies / the impact negative relations with the Entente has on how tightly the US is tied to the alliance economically, however, I can't say for certain.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

Does this threaten US-UK naval cooperation post war. Is the royal navy perceived as a threat to global trade and no longer a friend of it?

 

[NoMommsen]

snip

3. Support with troops and weapons Koronov's military coup in Russia, especially if its done preemptively when the Czar's regime is starting to look shakey, for the sake of insuring Russia remains in the war. Nicky's government was seen as the poster child for everything wrong with autocracy, and working so hard to save it would really rub liberty-loving America the wrong way.

snip

???

 

[Vylon Disigma]

I'm sure he ment Kornilov.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

???

*Kornilov, my apologies.

 

[NoMommsen]

Ahhh, THX

 

[Resurgam]

Suggesting to Mexico that they'd help get California and Texas back seemed to do a good job as it was...

 

[Vylon Disigma]

Can the Germans sabotage relations at all? Would a different president/PM cause more damage?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Suggesting to Mexico that they'd help get California and Texas back seemed to do a good job as it was...

Maybe not that extreme, but certainly the Entente could try to pressure the US not to go after Pancho Villa, for fear of Carranza torching the oil fields (which provided a lot of the Ententes oil), considering Carranza made that threat in OTL 1917 when the US was considering another intervention. That would not go down well

 

[FillyofDelphi]

Suggesting to Mexico that they'd help get California and Texas back seemed to do a good job as it was...

The Entente isn't suicidal. The Zimmerman Telegram (assuming the whole thing wasn't doctored by the British to some degree or another, or at least translated in the least flattering way) only made sense from the German perspective because it wasen't as though they had anything further to lose by worsening their relations with the US from -180 to -200. France and GB's actions should be justified and realistic, otherwise this question could be easily answered by "Shell Boston and Manhattan"