POLL: Great War Blockade of Germany

[Not James Stockdale]

This question presupposes a more interventionist United States with a foreign policy focus on things like free trade and human rights, and possibly a more significant pro-German political element. I don't think the question of how this occurred is particularly important in this context. In 1914, the United States has a relatively powerful navy for the Western Hemisphere and has been able to project power across the northern half of the hemisphere. If the US had entered the war on the side of the Triple Alliance, they would have been able to immediately threaten Canada, Newfoundland, British Honduras, Jamaica, Guiana, and a number of smaller British holdings in the Caribbean. I know the British would probably try to buy their way out of a problem, which they did no IOTL, but let's say that there is sufficient political will in the US to press the issue.

Therefore, the questions (which should be answered independently) are:
1) If the US issues an ultimatum to the British demanding that food be removed from the list of contraband goods (backed up by a reasonable threat of war), do the British comply, or do they go to war?
2) If the Germans are able to import food for the duration of the war, how is the course of the war impacted?
3) Would the British split up the Grand Fleet, even just the battle squadron of the oldest 12" dreadnoughts, to protect the Canadian coast or their Caribbean possessions from an ostensibly pro-German neutral battle fleet?
4) If the Grand Fleet is weakened by the loss of one battle squadron to a foreign station, how do the HSF's activities in the North Sea change?
5) If the US and Britain go to war in the 1915 - 1917 timeframe, would the impact of a loss of US and Canadian imports and partial interdiction of South American imports force the British out of the war?
6) If the US takes a more pro-German position, how would the deployment of Canadian forces to the Western Front be impacted, and how would these changes impact the course of the fighting there?
7) If the US and Britain go to war in 1915 or 1916, would the British attempt to send reinforcements to Canada, and where would these troops come from?

 

[Maniakes]

1. Yes, almost certainly. The British and French war efforts were financed and supplied in very large part by American exports purchased on credit. An American embargo would be disastrous for the Entente, and an actual declaration of war even worse.
2. It takes a ton of pressure off the German home front, and it removes most of the political pressure for unrestricted submarine warfare, so German is unlikely to provoke America into declaring war in 1917. Without American reinforcements on the way, Germany can better afford to take its time in the Spring Offensives, and the Entente don't have American divisions available first to free up British and French divisions to form a reserve to contain the offensives, and then a major component of the primary fighting force. Germany could still lose, but they have a much better chance of winning than OTL.
3. Not until around 1916. Early in the war (especially after HMS Audacious struck a mine and sunk in October 1914), Jellicoe was very nervous about his slim margin of superiority over the High Seas Fleet, since he had to assume the Germans could time their sorties for when all their capital ships were available for action, but Jellicoe often had ships down for repair and refit. More likely, they would have
4. Probably similar operational concepts to OTL (raids to force a portion of Grand Fleet to sortie, with HSF nearby to pounce and hopefully defeat that portion in detail), but quite a bit more aggressive because in this scenario HSF would be meeting GF on much more advantageous terms if the sortie turns into a Jutland-style battle between both full fleets. In particular, before the Queen Elizabeths commission (1915-1916), Grand Fleet minus a detached battle squadron is at parity or even a disadvantage to High Seas Fleet, especially if (as IOTL) Jellicoe's fears prove valid and HSF times their sorties for when all German dreadnoughts are available but some British dreadnoughts are down for repairs. They probably succeed in forcing a big battle in the 1915-1916 timeframe, most likely a tactical draw, but potentially a big win for Germany.
5. Probably not immediately, but it would severely hamper the British (and French) war efforts. US exports to the Entente powers in 1915 were $1.3 billion more than the prewar baseline (page 4), and almost $3 billion in 1916. The total British government's budget was $1.6 billion pounds (about $6 billion dollars) in 1915 and $2.2 billion pounds (about $8.8 billion dollars) in 1916. Losing American imports would cost Britain 20% of their war supplies (and civilian imports replacing production displace by domestic war industry and loss of workers to military service) in 1915 and 35% in 1916.
6. I don't have a good feel for this.
7. Not sure. Canada is pretty much indefensible against a mobilized US in 1914, and the UK probably knew that, but they might have felt obligated to reinforce Canada for the honor's sake and to make the invasion as expensive and bloody as possible.

 

[RodentRevolution]

This question presupposes a more interventionist United States with a foreign policy focus on things like free trade

America was focused on free trade hence why it leaned ever closer to the Entente as the war progressed.

For people wanting America to go to war on behalf of the Kaiser they need to ask themselves

1: Why is the US going to help its main export market rival Germany over its single biggest export market Britain and the British Empire?
2: Not only do the strange thing in 1 but also by doing it enable Germany to corner many of the USA's other export partners in Europe into a German controlled unfree trade zone?
3: Why risk American lives and American ships on helping Germany gain an advantage against the US?

Generally speaking Germany had the problem its own piss poor diplomacy had left it encircled and it needed to spend a lot of money and treasure to break the noose. Hence I suspect the realisation among board members that Germany needed America. America on the other hand was just fine without Germany.

As for the blockade, America gets the food embargo lifted but the British would merely pay US and Norwegian ships more to carry something else not to Germany meaning the Germans would be left with their own ships which are lawful prizes in commerce warfare. As you seem to have realised even in writing the OP more than just a commitment to free movement of food by the US is required but rather an active decision to cut Uncle Sam's nose off to spite US's industry and commerce's face for Germany to come out ahead in a long war. Maybe something going lucky for Germany in a short war can help but really long term they needed American intervention more than the Entente and that was going to be tricky given Germany's history of interventions in places such as the Philippines and Venezuela and Mexico all considered within the American sphere of interest.

 

[MichaelWest]

First I do not see any good reason for the USA to side with Germany, but in any scenario where Germany does not invade Belgium first off then I would argue that the American anger over British interference with its "freedom of the seas" or ability to trade as it pleases would become a true sticking point. OTL it was a serious and lasting wedge in Anglo-American relations. Without the "Rape of Belgium" then the war looks more obviously just a European war with no good guys, the USA will likely actually move to a more even handed neutrality. That said I still think we have traditional sympathy for France in the USA and the decision makers have cultural affinity if not outright Anglophilia, yet there is an odd anti-British sentiment that runs through the USA too, the echo of the Revolution. So combined with the mass sell off of assets, huge potential war orders, the Wilsonian neutrality and German population, the blockade could drive the USA to far greater antipathy if not belligerence at its shipping interdicted. But it is not certain, I would weigh it as sort of hostile neutrality in Germany's favor rather than against as OTL evolved. But that is certainly far better for the CPs, likely to tip the balance, as all things equal I feel the CPs were "winning" as the war lasted, without the USA adding drag they could win. So I would argue that the British blockade is a poisoned chalice, the only genuine means to harm Germany but also the best way to alienate the USA sufficient to hurt the Entente war effort. And it should open plenty of other butterflies.

 

[Tibi088]

OTL both Germany and Austria-Hungary was starving on the Home Front and the soldiers knew it on the front. It would have a tremendous effect if this element was removed.
Likely both but Germany for sure could stay in the war longer.

Also Germany is unlikely to risk US entry to the war in TTL. OTL the USA was considered as a kind of co-belligerent already by Germany because of the huge amount of war material it supplied the Antant with - and only the Antant. I remember seeing pictures of Germans exhibiting american weapons and bombs on the front titled something like american neutrality. The germans thought that as America already was giving all the material to the antant and has no real army its worth risking its entry with the unrestricted submarine warfare.

So with taking off the huge pressure of the home front and butterflying american entry I think German would have won the war.

 

[VoidStalker]

Not going back to USW would mean a reduction in supplies from the US in 1917 as the Entente runs out of collateral which will have all sorts of interesting effects for them. Plus with loans drying up does Russia maybe bow out earlier not believing that France and UK can provide financing for reconstruction after the war, or for that matter continued financing and supplies for the war.

Also ships docking at germany and AH with food are going to provide a means for news to be communicated back and forth and might give the germans a better idea of how the US is trending overall.