How many colonies could the USA nab during WWI?

It's, Boonz and Kiniichini make valid points.

IOTL, the USA consolidated its control of the Americas (via the United Fruit Company) and waited until the UK was bankrupted by WW2. In exchange for Lend-Lease, the U.K. was forced to loosen trading restrictions in her colonies. Only the USA was able to take advantage of free-trade and eventually controlled the economies of many former British colonies.
American companies were smart enough to only try to dominate the most profitable resources (in former British colonies) while ignoring road-building, hospitals, schools, etc.

Read "Confessions of a Corporate Hitman" to better understand the process.
 
I'd say the best bet is for a neutral yet fairly pro Entente USA during the war. Say someone does the math and realizes unrestricted submarine warfare doesn't provide that much of a benefit on the German side. That happens, well come early 1917, the Entente is fresh out of collateral and still needs loans to buy US goods to keep fighting at the present level. Well France and the UK have all these colonies they can mortgage, some of which the US may want, Cayman Islands and Clipperton for an outer perimeter of the Canal, Windward islands to have a base in that part of the Caribbean, St. Pierre and Miquelon for the fishing, Nauru to secure LoC to the Philippines, Tokelau to end that border dispute, South Georgia and the South Sandwich for the Whaling. Despite these loans keeping the dollars and goods flowing, Russia ends up bowing out earlier than OTL, freeing up troops much earlier to permanently neuter Italy during the Caparetto campaign, and forcing the Entente to launch extremely costly diversionary offensives to save Italy, which leaves them too exhausted to stop the equivalent of Michael from taking Amiens and Hazebrouk, and forcing Britain to abandon a good chunk of Northern France to Germany, cutting off the coal to feed France's war industries, and making France cry uncle by the start of 1919. With France losing the war, and forced to pay an indemnity to Germany, it cannot make payments, and loses its colonies. Britain, having spent more of her own blood and treasure than OTL, needing a larger military, and not getting reparations, is hurting economically rather worse than OTL but is able to get by until the great depression, at which point it defaults and the US collects their colonies
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If America combines maximum greed with minimum risk tolerance it goes after the territory of a neutral country rather than anyone affiliated with the Entente or CP.
So the juiciest target in that category is the Dutch East Indies.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The U.S. might have taken the Marshalls/Marianas Mandate, along with German Samoa,

Calbear's on to something with this being the most likely American acquisition, even if itself not terribly likely. Especially if Germany were willing to simply sell it at the outbreak of the war. (or beforehand, as I proposed, in at least a limited way, in a prior thread)

If there's no quick sales deal, it would be risky, but I suppose America could make an announcement as an interested neutral in the war that it does not desire German Micronesia to be transferred from Germany to any country except possibly the US. The Entente would find this obnoxious, but they could feel that it would be unwise to refuse head-on the claim staked by the US, at least in the postwar.
 
The only territories the US would be interested in would be the Caribbean in order to eliminate the residual European holdings in the Western Hemisphere, and some of the Pacific territories in order to rationalize existing US holdings there. The only German territories would exist in the Pacific, and the Japanese and British (often through the Australians) have already beaten them there and not been interested in giving them up.

If the US was really in an mercenary mode, it would have asked for some kind of collateral for the unsecured loans they began loaning the Allies after American entry into the war. Something like, "failure to pay back the loans will result in possession of the following Caribbean islands from British or French control to the US at the following agreed prices". Then various colonies from the Bahamas to the Antilles legally transfer to the US if the loans are not paid back.

I believe the Allied debts to be paid back was around $11 billion in principle and over 62 years of repayments would come to $22 billion in actual payments (interest and principle). Britain was around $4.6 billion of that and France was $4 billion. I don't know how much was paid back before the defaults occurred. I'm not sure as to what kind of "price" the various Caribbean colonies would have, but the Danish West Indies were sold to the US for only $25 million in 1916. So if the islands were held as collateral, the US could have gotten a lot of them.
 
Well, there's always the option of the US declaring all european possessions in the Americas forfeit.
The smaller countries like the danes and the dutch couldn't do anything about it regardless of the circumstances, France is in no condition to deal with it while the war is raging and would likely fare about as well as the spanish in '98 even in peace time.
That leaves Britain who technically can respond, but would have to basically go defensive in Europe to free sufficient resources, and then there's the slight matter of how they'll finance the war without US loans. And acting puts Canada on the table...

The only half way realistic response would be a post war coalition headed by Britain and France, but that would be several years later...
 
The only reason Japan joined the war was to grab those colonies before the US could make a claim, purchase, etc. You could very well see Japan be pushed into the Central Powers camp if you push them. Dont forget the Japanese Navy did important work in the Mediterranean. Just dont see it as realistic that anyone would want the US rather than Japan in those colonies in the Pacific. Britain may have been friendly but already had many disputes over Line Islands and others with the US, no reason to give the US domination in northern and western Pacific.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
IMO the U.S. had minimal interest in colonies in Africa, the colonies of choice would be German Samoa, German New Guinea, and the Marshalls, Carolines, Marianas, Palu. With Guam and American Samoa, that would have given the U.S. a secure line of communications between Hawaii, and the P.I., With that much ocean to cover, the U.S. would have been less likely in the naval treaties to give up base development and defenses. Also it would have eliminated Japanese bases I the Central Pacific, requiring all WW I I operations to start in the Home Islands or Formosa.

Yap was the one we were upset about. It is where our undersea cable came ashore. The headlines are great.

As to the thread topic, it depends. The Entente was in horrible shape, so we could have gotten a lot before we entered. The UK would have cave. After the war, it would be harder to get colonies.
 
not much for USA left over after France and Britain have take there loot after WW1

like "Deutsch-Südwestafrika" today Namibia
But there would be very interesting position for USA in Pacific the "Deutsch-Neuguinea" today Marshall islands, Bismarck Archipelago, Palau, Nauru, Samoa, part of Salomon islands and New Guinea.
since the USA had some dispute about the control of area with German Empire before WW1, it would be logical to heist the "Deutsch-Neuguinea" as USA colony after WW1
forming together with Philippines and Hawaii, the US Pacific Territory.
 
Top