How long would the Great War have taken if the Zimmerman Telegram was never sent?

Also, out of curiosity--what about President Clark? What exactly would he have done in such a situation?

Of course, had Clark been POTUS since 1913 (and no other year is likely as there was never any question of dumping Wilson in 1916) the situation itself might have been different.

Frex, he might have declared publicly that in his view armed merchantmen were auxiliary warships and so "fair game" to be destroyed without warning (a position which Wilson had rejected in theory but by late 1916 was tacitly accepting in practice) and perhaps even excluded them from US ports. In this case, Germany might have declared USW against armed ships only, which even Wilson would in all likelihood have swallowed, and Clark almost certainly. Iirc this was still Hindenburg's demand as late as Dec 1916. So the crisis never escalates as it did OTL.

Alternatively (if the Feb 1917 situation is as OTL) he might have gone for convoying American merchantmen rather than arming them. He could have justified this on the ground that the deck gun was of little use against a torpedo, and that the presence of real warships would be a better deterrent. This could defuse things another way, as those US vessels like the Vigilancia which got torpedoed OTL might not have been attacked (perhaps not even encountered) had they been in a convoy. Other neutrals might have been invited to join the convoys, but not belligerents. Indeed, given that in a vast ocean a convoy is hardly more conspicuous than a single ship, the U-boats might simply not have encountered any.

As to how long he could have delayed war, it depends how stubborn he was. The old Congress expired in March, and the new one wouldn't meet until December unless Clark summoned it. OTL, however, there were some important measures, notably an army appropriation, that had to be enacted before the end of June, which might have set a practical limit. OTOH, if we didn't have the furore over the Armed Ship Bill, these might conceivably have gone through before the old Congress adjourned, in which case Clark has virtually all of 1917 to delay if he so chooses.
 
Last edited:
So, in other words, with Clark as President, the U.S. sees no entry into WWI at all?

Certainly possible. Though it is also possible that his attitude might have been different once he no longer rat for an HoR seat with a large German population. OTOH his son Bennett inherited those views, which suggest they were genuine convictions rather than pure politics.

]Also, a bit off-topic, but out of curiosity--do you personally think that the proposed Constitutional amendment to limit the U.S. Presidency to one six-year term--something which Clark supported--would have been ratified had Clark been the 1912 Democratic presidential nominee?

Well, certainty is impossible, but in the Senate only one Democrat voted nay, while the Republicans were almost equally divided, which suggests it had a good chance.

Also, of eleven amendments sent to the States in the 21C, only two - the 1920s Child Labor Amendment and the 1970s Equal Rights Amendment - failed of ratification, in both sides largely due to Southern opposition. But only one Southern Senator - a Tennessee Republican appointed to a vacancy - voted against the Single Term Amendment, which suggest that the South would ratify w/o much trouble. Some Western States might reject, seeing it as an anti-TR measure, but my guess is they would be too few to prevent it becoming law.

David T, please let me know if there's any point I've missed.
 
Top