The German merchant-submarines

The proposition USW led to U.S. entry is mistaken. Recall the Zimmerman telegram.

A lot of people (and writers) say that, and it has come up on the board before. But take a look at the period article from the New York Times Feb-3-2017 (before the Zimmerman telegram came out), and other articles from around then.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0203.html#article

It sure implies the President has a lot of leeway to do whatever he wants, a couple of messy incidents on the high seas and we are probably in regardless of Zimmerman. (perhaps with less votes in congress than in OTL, and a delay over OTL helps Germany). I get the impression, Zimmerman made it politically too easy, vs a little had but doable to get the USA in.

(of course it may be like a strike vote, the Kerry I was before it before I was against it thing. the USA wants to look united, and ready to war, even if its not really, but its hard to turn that off in democracies)
 
A lot of people (and writers) say that, and it has come up on the board before. But take a look at the period article from the New York Times Feb-3-2017 (before the Zimmerman telegram came out), and other articles from around then.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0203.html#article

It sure implies the President has a lot of leeway to do whatever he wants, a couple of messy incidents on the high seas and we are probably in regardless of Zimmerman.
I accept it's possible for PotUS to act unilaterally. I doubt the political support for a DoW by Congres, however.
 
The proposition USW led to U.S. entry is mistaken. Recall the Zimmerman telegram.
Also recall the U.S. had large financial interests in France & Britain, so a strong bias. News from Germany is unlikey to change that.
On the first point, sure USW was probably more important for the DoW then Zimmermann, but it was a nice hook to pull with.
On the second point, I disagree. The financial interest was secured by Entente collateral. So the USA was unlikely to loose any money, well at least if the lenders valued the collateral "honestly".
But also remember that the premise is that the Germans have semi regular exchange of goods and news from sometime in 1916 on. So a lot more information from the CP side is reaching the USA and may force the British to be a mite more factual then OTL in their stories...
And not to forget the high value goods that the submarines will most likely carry. So the USAmerican industry may not be that open to the shenangians of the Entente regarding the Blockade.

Together you get a mash up that will most likely influence the thinking of others and may reduce the second USW to "tollarable" levels vs. the British deeds. And if that happens and the USA stay more neutral then the whole shebang of OTL will take another course as the Entente was running out of money / collateral to borrow with and that Imo would neccessitate a radical rethinking of their priorieties and options. Impacting the war, blockade and diplomacy.

IE. the Russians Imo will tap out faster then OTL without the USA in, the Blockade will not be closed in the USA and the Entente will have to rethink operations and morale more seriously.
 
Top