If the US stayed strictly neutral who has the best finances to fund WW1.

Delta Force

Banned
Weren't the British the worlds largest international investors prior to WW1? I also believe they already pumped a lot of money into funding the other Allies, chiefly France. I would think they could be able to generate a lot more liquidity than Germany or the other Central Powers if they were forced to.

London was the center of international finance in the early 1900s. The British Pound was the world reserve currency, like the United States Dollar after World War II. The British could call on the Dominions to help finance the war as well.

There are two issues - one is trade, the other finance. In a sense for at least the first couple of years of the war the US was neutral with respect to trade, the realities of the military situation was that except for a couple of voyages of a merchant sub nothing could get to Germany. However the US did not protest too much the RN blockade of Germany which included everything with food, medical supplies, etc not being allowed which was contrary to accepted practice for distant, as opposed to close, blockade. The key deal was finance. rather rapidly a good deal of the Entente purchases from the US from food to ammunition were made with loans made by US financiers to the Entente nations, subsequently backed by the US government after the US entered the war (an expectation of many of the loaners). Some money was loaned to the Central Powers but not so much. The Entente powers would have had a great deal of difficulty paying for the purchases absent the loans, running down gold reserves to next to nothing and probably incurring significant inflation.

So...no loans to either side will hurt the Entente way more than the Central Powers, and if the USA tells the UK and France that if they don't allow at least "humanitarian" trade with CP, no war related material will be sold to them...

The United States has always advocated freedom of the seas, so I don't know where you would get the impression that the Royal Navy blockade wasn't an issue, because it was.
 
The United States has always advocated freedom of the seas, so I don't know where you would get the impression that the Royal Navy blockade wasn't an issue, because it was.

Except of course during the American Civil War where they blockaded the South and which precedents the British then used during WW1
 
Possible butterflies people might not realize- Thailand (Siam) sent over 1,000 forces, most of which didn't matter because of French racism (originally thought by some French officers that they were colonial troops from French IndoChina for instance) and not used to their full potential (while the Siamese army was backwards and ill-equipped for modern warfare their pilots and airforce was acknowledged to be quite modern and well trained). The reason history forgets them, and even at the time they were overshadowed, is because- over 10x as many Americans showed up in Europe at the same time. Otherwise it was quite an amazing and impressive display of an Asian power coming TO Europe in order to fight with Europeans in a European war. Even Japan never sent troops to the Western Front.

Does an ATL where America does not get involved with WWI mean that Siam gets more international recognition, "street cred", and honor from European nations in the post-war period? Just as Italy was given land from Egypt, French Equitorial Africa, Algeria, and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in return for their efforts in the war, is it possible to credibly have a butterfly in which France gives Laos and the British give the Shan State of Burma to Siam since those places have Tai ethnicity with language and history ties. This might even butterfly away Thailand/Siam joining in an alliance with Japan during ATL "WWII" which as much as you might butterfly away WWII in Europe in ATL you CAN'T with this PoD butterfly away Japan's involvement, the planning and nationalistic "Asia for Asians" has already begun. But maybe Siam is strong enough, has the European backing, the self-confidence, and the financial backing to keep the Japanese from seizing French IndoChina with British help through Burma and India, then are able to support and defend Malaya and Singapore (the Gibraltar of the East doesn't fall). The "Pacific War of the 1940s" might not go as well for Japan and Germany might even regain their old colonies, and if a USA doesn't get involved (because the war ends too early? or just continued non-involvement in world politics); you might see a resurgence of European colonialism, they carve up of spheres in China while saying they support a Republican govt while the Soviet Union assaults "Capitalist imperialism" and uses their spheres in Xinjiang and Manchuria to support a communism rebellion (sound familiar), and a Japan treated as Germany was treated in the Treaty of Versailles OTL. Leads to a WWIII of course.
 
Top