The Pacific Purchase of 1914

I really don't see how you can view this as anything other than an insanely move by the USA and one which will be opposed fully by the Entente powers.

I don't see how you can imagine the USA effectively "claiming" these isles without declaring war is going to be accepted. For a start by the time the deal is hammered out (its not the sort of thing to be decided in an afternoon!) the islands are likely in the course of being occupied by the Entente. I don't know how quickly a force of occupation could be mustered by the USA, but they are unlikely to beat the Entente forces in the area. I struggle to imagine Entente forces leaving because the Americans have a peice of paper which alledges proof of purchase. The British and Japanese will respond with the simple truth that the Government of Germany has no right to sell that which they no longer possess.

As for the USA flying off the handle at being thwarted in these scheme, it seems unlikely because the scheme is so insane. At best only a minority of officials are likely to be in its favour. The US wouldn't go to war with Germany to get these isles, but it will go to war with/embargo/threaten the Entente for not handing them over? It doesn't make much sense.

Has a thread ever argued that, all operational choices being equal (no allied luck in 1914 or 1915 beyond OTL's), that the allies could win a long war without any US subsidy whatsoever?

I doubt anyone has offered a *US offers the Allies absolutely no economic support at all* timeline because it is completely irrational and thus rather implausable.

The US economy produces a massive surplus available for export. If you take out the central powers due to the British blockade and then take out the Entente due to some self-imposed blockade who is left to trade with? That great economic giant of South America? You have likely just made alot of people go out of business and alot of people who could be making massive profits out of the war are not. All these people are going to clamour for the self imposed blockade to be lowered. Napoleon could enforce such a blockade (which was terrible for numerous ports) but he was a dictator with only a minimal need to care for public oppinion. The situation in the democratic USA is quite different.

If you argue trade continues but loans are banned, the situation is much the same. For a start, it doesn't serve America for the Entente powers to be so strapped for cash they cannot buy American goods.

The Entente powers (or the central powers, but they are difficult to get at) have a higher demand for cash than the American domestic market or elsewhere in the non-fighting world. You would be a fool not to invest since the returns are so high. If the Government forbids it your potential investors (principally banks) are again going to be irked that their profits are less than they could be and likely clamour for the blockade to be removed.

Unfortunately after a while investors will realise if the Entente are defeated they are likely to default (for one reason or another). Thus the realisation that Britain (as the key financial player) cannot be allowed to go under and from there growing support for American involvement in the war from financial institutions and other sources.
 
....Rise, my creature, rise...! It's alive! (Doubtless somebody's pissed off.:p)

Anglo-Japanese treaty no doubt is renewed as well.
I don't see the connection. The Brits had heavy postwar debt, & FWIR, hoped to have some/all of it cancelled by U.S. in exchange for dropping the AJNT.
and the US has use for these islands why? Guam and Wake in the age of Steam are not enough in the way of way stations across the Pacific to the Phillipines and China.
Additional bases to defend routes to P.I., to begin with. P.I. were coming to be seen as a drain, & indefensible; with better, closer bases (Truk, anyone?), maybe not...

Why sell? Germany desperately needs nitrates & explosives...& this'd be a pretty cheap way of getting them.

But the idea that Entente can win minus US loans and minus US entry does not wash.
I believe that with just US loans and material support, but not combat participation, the allies can still win.

I believe that with US combat participation in Europe, but without loans (which I can't imagine happening), the allies can still win.
OK, I have to disagree. Both sides were near exhaustion by the end of '17, & the Entente without US$ would have collapsed. U.S. involvement, it's been said, actually made things worse, by giving the Entente the sense they'd crushed Germany, leading to harsh terms &, indirectly, WW2.
 
Well, after the war the Japanese probably say "buzz off" when the Americans ask them to leave Siberia;
I doubt if the Japanese would be in Siberia. Remembre they only went to Siberia After the US asked [begged] Them to. And the Diet almost refused OTL. ITTL The Diet would assuringly refuse.
 
Top