Questions for a TL of my own

I'm working on a Central Powers victory TL (look, I know it's old, but I'm a relative newcomer. Give me some time to work through all the tired old tropes) and I was wondering if my current basic scenario is even a bit realistic: I have Italy stay out of the war until 1917 when they join on the side of the Central Powers after Brest-Litovsk and the show of German strength. The US stays out of the war permanently, and cuts economic ties with the Entente at the same time as Italy joins the war.

The weak parts are a) Italy joining the war on the side of Austria-Hungary and b) the US totally abandoning the Entente. Is it possible for the US to start selling weapons to the Central Powers when the balance of power shifts?

Also notable: submarine warfare is kept somewhat restricted, as Germany isn't quite feeling such a pinch thanks to trade with Italy.
 
Well if Austria ceeds some territory to Italy it might join the Central Powers, as for the US staying out entirely; no German unlimited submarine warfare should do the trick long enought before the war is over I assume. Best chance to win the war in France then after 1917 is a French Army mutiny when fresh German forces arrive from the east, but no Americans or other major freshly Allied troops show up in France. Problem is the possibility of revolution in Germany and Austria-Hungary and their most likely support by the Soviets after they have won in Russia (or at least them inspiring similar sovialist rebellions in Germany, A-H, or even a beaten France).
 
Russia is hardly a concern. They won't eject rogue Czechs from their country until 1920; they certainly won't have money before then to support a revolution in Germany. Besides, Germany is now going to be flooded with blood money from the Entente, trade from their new vassals eastwards, and a resuscitation of their colonial empire. Austria-Hungary splintering works well for my planned story, but it would be nice if only little bits went communist. Britain and France going red would be the best thing that could happen. Germany may kill the Russian communist state in its infancy, but may leave it alone provided it feels sure that Brest-Litovsk will be honored. Also, they would have huge issues convincing their population to support more war.

I doubt Austria-Hungary would cede land without Germany holding a figurative and literal gun to its head. Do you think Italy would join for promised spoils out of French and British holdings? Give them North Africa, Gibraltar, and a handful of islands, and that's practical control of the Mediterranean.

Would the US start selling guns to Germany? My own TL is pretty cynical in that respect; I have Wilson cut all credit lines with the Entente and ban trade as soon as Italy joins, and trades with Germany to offst some of the cost of loan defaults Is this realistic?
 
Not nice but quite realistic. He won't want a banking crash on his watch.
I thought as much. I can't imagine the British letting arms shipments through, but neither can I imagine them shooting American ships and risking their ire. If the US does jump in, it will be extremely limited. Seize a couple cities in Canada while the Germans win the war in Europe.
 

Anchises

Banned
Would the US start selling guns to Germany? My own TL is pretty cynical in that respect; I have Wilson cut all credit lines with the Entente and ban trade as soon as Italy joins, and trades with Germany to offst some of the cost of loan defaults Is this realistic?

Banning trade with the Entente might be a little much. I would think that a shift to true neutrality is more realistic. No further credits for France and Britain. Everything they want to buy has to be paid for in hard currency, up-front.

Once the Entente loses America is still going to have a big political and economic problem.

Germany is probably going to be fairly hostile, Wilson has basically "backed the wrong horse" for most of the war and they are sitting on a pile of toxic loans.

France won't be able to repay the USA, especially if we factor in reparations to Germany. Britain probably won't have to pay reparations but will be really hard pressed to pay.
 

Deleted member 94680

I know the “Austrians give territory to Rome” line is a popular one, but I really don’t think that would swing Italy into the war. They’re far too dependant on WAllied (British) capital to cut that link with a DoW.

Why would Italy going CP result in the US cutting off the WAllies financially?
 
If the Entente loses the war, then it is very unlikely that it will be able to pay off all of the loans advanced by the US to buy American weapons. Italy joining the Central Powers, and right as Russia leaves the war to boot, makes it likely that the Entente will lose. The US can keep selling guns and hope that will be enough (it won't) or intervene in the war directly. Direct intervention is going to cost a lot of American lives, and they have no casus belli without unrestricted submarine warfare. The third option, the one I have them take, is to cut their losses with the Entente by not letting them have any more money. Given that they are still going to have a lot of defaulted loans, I add in that Wilson switches sides and supports Germany in the same way. This is a bit unrealistic, so maybe I'll have them aid in reconstruction afterwards, selling civilian industry products.

How much of the Italian economy couldn't be made up for by trade with other Central Powers, plus the US?
 
Italy was massively divided in 1914, which is why neutrality worked. Entry in 1915 was predicated on 1) Dardanelles and 2) promises. They kinda came together - as promises without action in the E Med would have seemed empty.

I'm pretty sure you can play out Italian politics to favour the constitution and keep them neutral longer term
 
The US's position initially was to sell to those with credit, and later to advance financing to the Entente so they would have credit (essentially with American money) so to turn this arounf they would have to decide to advance credit to the Central Powers too.

Maybe Charles Hughes winning would alter a dynamic here - Wilson had a record to defend, Hughes could claim to be swinging in tune with the circumstances as they change
 
then it is very unlikely that it will be able to pay off all of the loans advanced by the US to buy American weapons
The thing all pre OTL entrance to war loans were pretty secure but entete ran out money first in 1917 meaning under true neutrality the time is ticking faster unless britain put more ante( assets? Colonies? Something else) on the table
 

BlondieBC

Banned
@Svyatoy Medved

  • Sure, Italy can stay out of the war. What POD do you have in mind to cause this to happen?
  • If Italy just stays neutral, CP win.
  • USA will sell to all sides here, and will cut off Entente when the run out of gold. This is about April 1917 plus or minus impact of your POD.
  • USA will sell a lot to CP via Italy. Italy is too powerful to blockade and drive into the war as CP ally early.
  • USA only sold on secured debt. i.e. things back by physical assets in USA. There is no default risk for the USA.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If the Entente loses the war, then it is very unlikely that it will be able to pay off all of the loans advanced by the US to buy American weapons. Italy joining the Central Powers, and right as Russia leaves the war to boot, makes it likely that the Entente will lose. The US can keep selling guns and hope that will be enough (it won't) or intervene in the war directly. Direct intervention is going to cost a lot of American lives, and they have no casus belli without unrestricted submarine warfare. The third option, the one I have them take, is to cut their losses with the Entente by not letting them have any more money. Given that they are still going to have a lot of defaulted loans, I add in that Wilson switches sides and supports Germany in the same way. This is a bit unrealistic, so maybe I'll have them aid in reconstruction afterwards, selling civilian industry products.

How much of the Italian economy couldn't be made up for by trade with other Central Powers, plus the US?

You don't understand how the financing work. The USA did not sell on credit. Early in 1915, the UK made all citizens sell ALL real property, stocks and bonds in the USA to the British government for British government debt only payable after the war. The UK then had JP Morgan liquidate these assets as needed to pay for goods on freighter. As of the time the ship left port, all goods are paid for in gold. JP Morgan provided liquidity (2 weeks or so), but it was always secured with assets.

The USA sold as much as it could to Germany but the Royal Navy got in the way. With Italy as an open transit port, ITTL, the flow of goods will be a lot larger to Germany.

USW brought the USA into the war. Avoid this, and the USA never becomes hostile to Germany. There is no switching sides.

Italy has a coal problem since it lives on UK coal. So the question relates to Germany diverting coal to Italy to get it to join the war.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
The US's position initially was to sell to those with credit, and later to advance financing to the Entente so they would have credit (essentially with American money) so to turn this arounf they would have to decide to advance credit to the Central Powers too.

Maybe Charles Hughes winning would alter a dynamic here - Wilson had a record to defend, Hughes could claim to be swinging in tune with the circumstances as they change


That is just wrong. USA did not provide any credit to Entente until after the USA joined war.
 
I was under the impression that the US provided much in the way of unsecured loans to the Entente, that this was the only way they were able to afford as much ammunition as they bought. My mistake.

Thanks for your insights regarding arms trade. Here's something: the British control Gibraltar, so why wouldn't they cut off American shipments to Italy at that point?
 
Banning trade with the Entente might be a little much. I would think that a shift to true neutrality is more realistic. No further credits for France and Britain. Everything they want to buy has to be paid for in hard currency, up-front.

basically as OTL, all loan till 1917 were secured by the British and French (and there will more money due to not financing Italy war effort) and Wilson throwing the Entente and getting chumming with the Kaiser and co. is difficult due to him being more an anglophile and wary of prussian militarism.
He will simply stop loan once the Entente don't have the mean to secure them but will also not sell too much to the CP; plus if there is no USW the supply situation of the Entente will be better and this will also mean less money spent in the USA and so more financial authonomy.
Frankly a victory of Hughes and the USA going true neutral will cause more or less the same effect, but this will also mean that the UK will not spent at the end of the war like OTL and while Germany will have the possibility to give France the Septemberprogram treatment, the same will not possible for Great Britain (frankly in any case a white peace is the max possibility) and a more conditional treaty will be needed

Thanks for your insights regarding arms trade. Here's something: the British control Gibraltar, so why wouldn't they cut off American shipments to Italy at that point?

Italy as neutral will have some limit at what she will can import, sure it will not like Norway and Netherlands as she is a great power and have more leeway and London can look the other way to some 'under the table' commerce if it's not too evident and limited.
Once the war start, Italy will be better have some increase of national production of coal (as OTL) and lot of reserve of coal and food as the British controlling Gibraltar and Suez will stop them.

I know the “Austrians give territory to Rome” line is a popular one, but I really don’t think that would swing Italy into the war. They’re far too dependant on WAllied (British) capital to cut that link with a DoW.
Why would Italy going CP result in the US cutting off the WAllies financially?

War? No, but keep them neutral while being favorable towards the CP? Yes. Maybe Italy will try something if she see that the Entente is on the rope, but it's more probable than not as frankly it will need lot of discussion about italian compensation in this case and wien will not desire Italy getting too much or poaching in her turf. Remain neutral it's the most probable outcome
 
An enraged the congress So a second embargo act is like a possibility? That would make usa Even more Anti entete and close all the doors

No more than when the same had happened to other neutrals; and frankly the entente money is too good and an act like that will have a lot of repercussion to the american economy (none of them good)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I was under the impression that the US provided much in the way of unsecured loans to the Entente, that this was the only way they were able to afford as much ammunition as they bought. My mistake.

Thanks for your insights regarding arms trade. Here's something: the British control Gibraltar, so why wouldn't they cut off American shipments to Italy at that point?

Wouldn't Italy go to war over this? And doesn't this mean that Entente shipping can't use the Med Sea?
 
Top