Trade effect on WWI w/true neutral USA

Germany had a Reichstag going back decades with real budgetary powers. Other powers were in the second chamber of the parliament. It is much more similar to the UK system of government in 1909 than the Tsar of 1914. Germany actually had less power in the hands of the Nobles in 1909 than the UK did, and the 1910 reforms gave the UK a bit of a lead in being more democratic.

A-H parliaments also had power as show by the underfunding of the Army due to the Hungarian parliament tactics. A-H had many disfunctional elements, but that does not make it an absolute Monarchy.


Do you even know what an absolute Monarchy is? It is where the Monarch has all power, not some power. Where a monarch has some power but is limited by a written or unwritten constitution is a constitutional monarchy.

And it had a Chancellor accountable only to the Kaiser, a military accountable only to the Kaiser, and the principle of Kommandogewalt which was Fuhrerprinzip Mk. I. I know damn well what an absolute monarchy is, it seems you're the one who has a hard time accepting the self-evidently obvious, namely that Prussia and the House of Habsburg were autocrats, just autocracies ruled by bad autocrats.

Claiming that a monarchy doesn't have power in the hands of the nobles is precisely what the absolutist regimes strove for, so it's a red herring.

Austria-Hungary and Germany were autocracies if we want to be the least bit intellectually honest about what the CPs actually were. Of course if we're not being intellectually honest and are instead relying on the old Russia ain't Europe double-standard than that's another matter. It should be noted that the Kaiserreich inherited the Prussian autocracy, so it's hardly likely that the heirs of Frederick the Great were going to give up absolutist power in a united Germany. Of course for some reason people always scream and twist away from facing the obvious about the German Empire.
 
Insist on treaties being followed...

The biggest illegality in Britain's dealings with the USA was its distant blockage--illegal--and worse, its blockade of neutral nations. Under ALL the treaties, traffic for neutrals was NOT, ever, subject to blockade. The USA--and everyone else--had the right to sell anything--including weapons--to neutrals. So, shipment of war materials to The Netherlands was not subject to blockade--but Britian did blockade the neutrals--even with respect to food. What the neutrals did with it was their own business...

Insisting in the treaties being followed isbeing a true neutral.

As for loans, let businesses loan to anyone--that's also truely neutral, and allowed--but don't have the government involved. Businesses loan at own risk. (And make sure that things like Schwab's sneaking big guns to Canada for shipment to Britain don't happen--the guns were not his to sell. If it does, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law...showing that the government won't tollerate this sort of thing.

However, being able to trade with both sides would be good for business--even if the trade with the Central Powers goes through Italy and The Netherlands...

A reqyuired POD would include getting rid of Wilson...
 
Insist on treaties being followed...

Yes. you could have the USA insisting on strict adherence to existing international law. And backing it up with what, exactly?
 
Insist on treaties being followed...

Yes. you could have the USA insisting on strict adherence to existing international law. And backing it up with what, exactly?
I don't know, say a total embargo to the entire Entente if they refuse?

This thread was created to explore the possibilities of differing trade situations in WWI. Do you have any thoughts on what could have been done differently by the USA? I would be glad to read some original content and new ideas along these lines.

Welcome to the thread.
 
[...]That means the USA has to go to war with the Allies for the benefit of an absolute monarchy the USA had zero love or respect for.

To call Germany a constitutional monarchy but Russia absolutist means either absolutism is meaningless or people are bending over backwards to present Russians as despotic while obscuring the degree to which both Germany and Austria-Hungary were just as autocratic and neo-feudal as Russia itself was. Germany officially had a constitution, so did Russia. Austria-Hungary had a byzantine division on ethnic lines, so did Russia. Germany and Austria-Hungary had legislatures, so did Russia. If we're going to call them constitutional, then so was Nicholas II a constitutional monarch.

Otherwise, if we stick to what words mean, as opposed to what we want them to mean, Germany was an absolute monarchy, proud of it, and fell apart at the seams like Austria-Hungary and Russia because dynastic autocracy and modern war don't mesh very well.

And it had a Chancellor accountable only to the Kaiser, a military accountable only to the Kaiser, and the principle of Kommandogewalt which was Fuhrerprinzip Mk. I. I know damn well what an absolute monarchy is, it seems you're the one who has a hard time accepting the self-evidently obvious, namely that Prussia and the House of Habsburg were autocrats, just autocracies ruled by bad autocrats.

Claiming that a monarchy doesn't have power in the hands of the nobles is precisely what the absolutist regimes strove for, so it's a red herring.

Austria-Hungary and Germany were autocracies if we want to be the least bit intellectually honest about what the CPs actually were. Of course if we're not being intellectually honest and are instead relying on the old Russia ain't Europe double-standard than that's another matter. It should be noted that the Kaiserreich inherited the Prussian autocracy, so it's hardly likely that the heirs of Frederick the Great were going to give up absolutist power in a united Germany. Of course for some reason people always scream and twist away from facing the obvious about the German Empire.
Here you are plain wrong. It is the core of the definition of an absolutist monarchy (which goes back to Louis XIV.) that the monarch has absolute that is unrestricted limitless power in what he could do. That was not the case in the German Empire since its foundation in 1871 (and was not the case for the Prussian King since 1849) and was also not the case for the Russian tsar since 1906. A constitutional monarchy is in contrast to an ablsoute monarchy a form of government where the ruler is subject to certain limitations enshrined in a constitution (hence the name). The German constitution constituted the following limitations on the emperor:
- Legislative action was reserved only for the Reichstag and the Bundesrat (the latter was the federal chamber), Art. 5 of the Constitution. That means the emperor was only able to influence the legislative process in his role as Prussian King in the Bundesrat Art. 11) and would have to gain support by the other states (Prussia had only 17 votes out of 58, although a lot of the minor northern states would vote with Prussia on a regular basis). This included all budgetary laws (Art. 69).
- The right to legislative initiative was held by the Reichstag and the chancellor (Art. 23). That meant that the Reichstag could start a legislative process without the consent of the emperor. The emperor could only start a legislative process via proxy (chancellor), who at least technically could refuse.
- The above meant that - although the emperor, his chancellor and the government were not responsible to the Reichstag - they had to work with it, especially considering the fact that the Reichstag had the power to deny funding.
- Reichstag members were protected from prosecution because of their work in the parliament (parliamentary immunity, Art. 30, 31).
- Reichstag elections were general and direct in a secret ballot with universal suffrage for all males at the age of 25 and above (which is incidentally one of the most extensive suffrages at that time, iirc better than the suffrage of democratic states like France, the UK or the USA). A true secret ballot in practice was only established in 1913, however.
- The Reichstag could be dissolved by the emperor before its legislative period was over, but only if the Bundesrat consented to this action (Art. 25).
- The emperor was the representative of the Empire in international relations. He could conclude treaties with other states but if they touched legislative issues under Art. 4 they had to be ratified by the Reichstag and Bundesrat. The emperor could declare war but he would at least need the consent of the Bundesrat. De facto would he need the consent of the Reichstag, because of said budgetary power.

Thus the German Empire was a constitutional federal monarchy. As was the Russian Empire since 1906.* The UK was a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. Neither the German Empire nor the Russian Empire can be called an absolute monarchy in 1914.

There were, of course, quite some differences between Russia and Germany:

For instance, Russia was not a federal state, besides the special rights which were granted to Finland. The tsar had more power than the German emperor: He was the only institution which had the right to legislative initiative (Art. 8). He could veto any law (Art. 9, 86). His powers to conclude treaties with other states or to declare war were unlimited (Art. 13). He was unchecked to declare martial law (Art. 15). He was the head of the church (Artt. 62 ff.) He was perpetually referred to as the sole autocratic ruler throughout the constitution (see especially Art. 4, 5).

Considering how much de facto power the Reichstag gained in between 1871 and 1914 up to and including one of the best election laws in the western world, most of the recent academic publications on this subject acknowledge that the German Empire was well on the way towards full democratisation and a parliamentary monarchy. This is especially exemplified by the debate about the inheritance/estate tax, which in the end despite strong resistance from the conservative side was enacted. The elections of 1912 saw a landslide victory for the SPD and solid results for both liberal parties. The conservatives were dying. And the centre was also losing its appeal. Not to mention the fact the emperor was given a de facto muzzle by the Reichstag after his 1908 blunders which let him to think of resignation. If not for the war one can seriously argue that Germany could have ended up like the UK with a stronger federal aspect.

I am not aware of a mainstream academic publication which argues that the German Empire was an absolutist monarchy. Most of the elements you cited are not a defining aspect of an absolutist monarchy. For example, that the head of the executive has a strong control of the military is a normal situation in most democratic states even today up to and including the USA.

Russia had some different regulations which I consider important enough to make a distinction between both constitutions although the Russian Empire was from 1906 on a constitutional monarchy. There is no doubt about that.

But the question in such an A-H scenario is not how academic scholars would define a form of government, but how the government was percieved by the contemporaries. For the time being I can only speak for the UK and Russia: and Russia had a worse reputation there than Germany when it came to form of government. That was one reason why even the British hawkes like Grey knew that a war to defend the despotic Russia (against Germany) would be out of the question, because it could not be sold to the public. How the US percieved Russia and Germany respectively Ihave not researched yet.

*Sidenote: There was a contemporary publication which called Russia a constitutional monarchy with an autocratic tsar.

Kind regards,
G.
 
Insist on treaties being followed...

Yes. you could have the USA insisting on strict adherence to existing international law. And backing it up with what, exactly?
Having armed escorts for theor ships, for instance. And if the UK shoot them they have another war to fight with the US - I doubt that they would have done that. Only German politicians and military officials can be that stupid to risk that.

Kind regards,
G.
 
Insist on treaties being followed...

Yes. you could have the USA insisting on strict adherence to existing international law. And backing it up with what, exactly?

The real gist seems to be the USA going to war with the UK *and* France *for* Germany. In a WWI setting. Rather improbable with a post-1900 POD and extremely difficult to achieve with a pre-1900 POD.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
And it had a Chancellor accountable only to the Kaiser, a military accountable only to the Kaiser, and the principle of Kommandogewalt which was Fuhrerprinzip Mk. I. I know damn well what an absolute monarchy is, it seems you're the one who has a hard time accepting the self-evidently obvious, namely that Prussia and the House of Habsburg were autocrats, just autocracies ruled by bad autocrats.

Claiming that a monarchy doesn't have power in the hands of the nobles is precisely what the absolutist regimes strove for, so it's a red herring.

Austria-Hungary and Germany were autocracies if we want to be the least bit intellectually honest about what the CPs actually were. Of course if we're not being intellectually honest and are instead relying on the old Russia ain't Europe double-standard than that's another matter. It should be noted that the Kaiserreich inherited the Prussian autocracy, so it's hardly likely that the heirs of Frederick the Great were going to give up absolutist power in a united Germany. Of course for some reason people always scream and twist away from facing the obvious about the German Empire.

Yes, the Kaiser and his chancellor had powers similar to an american president, but the Reichstag had budget powers, and they often used them. And the military was under various Monarchs and sub units, so until a war started, he did not control them. The Bavarian and Saxon armies had a lot more independence than the modern National Guard and are similar in autonomy to USA around the civil war.

A-H had autocratic tendencies, but also had strong Democratic elements. Germany had better sufferage than the UK, and Prussian is arguably better than the UK around 1900. Constitutional Monarchy only means their is a constitution that limits the Monarchs power in a substantial way. Budget control is a substantial limitation of power.

In USA terms, the Kaiser was the Executive Branch, but there is an elected Legislative Branch and a judiciary with reasonable independence.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Insist on treaties being followed...

Yes. you could have the USA insisting on strict adherence to existing international law. And backing it up with what, exactly?

Tariffs, trade restrictions, ban on Entente shipping using Panama Canal, or military force (more realistically the threat of military force.) You can also allow Germans to sue in USA courts for damages due to violation of international law and enforce the judgements against UK assets. Lots of options. You can also apply pressure to neutrals to stay neutral. Italy might think twice if the right things. The USA is also a major oil and food exporter. The deck is stacked in the USA favor at the beginning, and becomes more stacked in our favor over time.

Also, the Blockade evolved over time, so likely smaller steps early on prevent it from being
 
Short of war...

The USA has plenty of ways to enforce its neutrailty short of war--and neither side would liklely be stupid enough to push the issue, for one simple reason: If one side violates American neutrality and the other doesn't, the other side gets plenty of aid short of war. Britain tramples American neutrality= no trade with Britain, freezing of assets, etc. Germany rides roughshod over American neutrailty = free, unfettered trade with the Entente.

In OTL, Germany pushed the issue because the USA was acting in a very un-neutral manner anyway.
 
Top