Truly Neutral USA in WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Pretty much.
It's one of history's ironies that Germany could have seen it's desire to limit Entente imports achieved by standing pat rather than renewing USW. The perceived need to limit the importation of US war materials by re-implementing USW led Germany to take certain actions, the chief of which was the Zimmerman Telegram, which had the opposite effect of opening the flood gates for the importation of US war materials.

If the the zimmerman telegram was indeed sent by the germans themselves ;)
 
The Zimmerman telegram was simply an epic fail on the part of the German government. Even a return to unrestricted submarine warfare was not certain to bring the US in to the war but trying to organize an alliance aimed at seizing American territory...:eek:

The Zimmerman telegram was certainly genuine, as Zimmerman himself admitted when an American journalist invited him to deny the legitimacy of the telegram, a great fear of many in Washington DC.
 
If the the zimmerman telegram was indeed sent by the germans themselves ;)


You need to adjust the tinfoil in your hat. :rolleyes:

In March while war fever built in the US, Zimmerman twice admitted on occasions three weeks apart that he had composed and dispatched the telegram. Even W.R. Hearst, whose papers had been the screaming "It's a British trap" the loudest, finally believed Zimmerman.
 
The Zimmerman telegram was simply an epic fail on the part of the German government. Even a return to unrestricted submarine warfare was not certain to bring the US in to the war but trying to organize an alliance aimed at seizing American territory...:eek:


Agreed.

In many ways, the Telegram oddly resembles Pearl Harbor.

The Telegram was dispatched and Pearl attacked because of the perceived benefit they would have for other more important operations.

Germany needed to limit Entente imports and decided on USW as the method to achieve that. It was perceived that re-implementing USW could risk the entry of the US into the war, so the US had to be distracted and the Telegram was conceived.

Japan needed to seize the Southern Resource Area and secure the LOCs between that region in the Home Islands. US forces in the Philippines could easily interdict those LOCs, so US forces in the Philippines needed to be neutralized. Damaging the USN's ability to reinforce the Philippines was necessary so Pearl was bombed.

While Germany was hoping to keep the US out of the war and Japan was planning on the US entering the war, both the Telegram and Pearl were seemingly small pieces of much larger strategic plans which ended up destroying the powers in question.
 

Deleted member 1487

Agreed.

In many ways, the Telegram oddly resembles Pearl Harbor.

The Telegram was dispatched and Pearl attacked because of the perceived benefit they would have for other more important operations.

Germany needed to limit Entente imports and decided on USW as the method to achieve that. It was perceived that re-implementing USW could risk the entry of the US into the war, so the US had to be distracted and the Telegram was conceived.

Japan needed to seize the Southern Resource Area and secure the LOCs between that region in the Home Islands. US forces in the Philippines could easily interdict those LOCs, so US forces in the Philippines needed to be neutralized. Damaging the USN's ability to reinforce the Philippines was necessary so Pearl was bombed.

While Germany was hoping to keep the US out of the war and Japan was planning on the US entering the war, both the Telegram and Pearl were seemingly small pieces of much larger strategic plans which ended up destroying the powers in question.

It wasn't so much the telegram that was the problem, it was Zimmermann's admission of guilt! The Americans in general were not willing to believe it, even Wilson, but all were incredulous when Zimmermann went ahead a admitted to betraying the trust of Wilson, who had allowed them to use the US diplomatic cable lines to talk to their embassies and work on a peace deal. Zimmermann post war stated the jig was up, so might as well fess up, but honestly, had he denied, as any good diplomat would have, US entry could have been delayed significantly and probably caused much more dissention during mobilization in the US.
 
In fact the American public outside the eastern seaboard was jolted violently by the news nor did it help in DC to learn that Germany had used a diplomatic channel provided, in violation of international law, by Wilson to try to form an alliance against the US.

I can only imagine what was going on in the White House when Wilson realized what Germany had been doing and that his own violation of the law had been known by the British for months, after he overrode Secretary of State Robert Lansing's persistent and extreme objections.
 
In fact the American public outside the eastern seaboard was jolted violently by the news nor did it help in DC to learn that Germany had used a diplomatic channel provided, in violation of international law, by Wilson to try to form an alliance against the US.

I can only imagine what was going on in the White House when Wilson realized what Germany had been doing and that his own violation of the law had been known by the British for months, after he overrode Secretary of State Robert Lansing's persistent and extreme objections.

So a truly neutral US (or Wilson) wouldn't have provided the channel the Zimmerman telegram was transmitted with, thus it, reasonably, wouldn't have happened?

In other words, being neutral helps the US stay neutral?
 
Nevertheless, I won't exactly say that US actions early in the war weren't pro-Entente.


You're looking at the issue from the wrong perspective.

You cannot examine US policies from an Entente or Central Powers point of view. Instead, you must examine US policies from a US point of view alone.

The US policies in question were pro-US. Period.

It is true that US policies were more often "in synch" with the desires of the Entente than the desires of the Central Powers, but that's because the economic boom the US was very much enjoying was a direct result of Entente purchases. If purchases by the Central Powers had been fueling the US economy instead, US policies would have been more "in synch" with Central Powers' desires.

This "bias" you continually mention was nothing more than customer service. Your assumptions regarding the issue are also exactly backwards. US policies didn't initiate or form US economic support to the Entente. Instead, Entente economic penetration of the US helped shape US policies.

HOWEVER Wilson WAS trying to support the Entente in little ways...
Wilson was only pro-Wilson and his most vocal critics up to the events of March 1917 were those who felt he wasn't doing enough to help the Entente.

Wilson "knew" deep down in his soul that he was the smartest, best educated, wisest, and most noble man in the room when in fact he was a stiff-necked racist prig with barely concealed autocratic tendencies. Until the Zimmerman Telegram turned him into a "holy warrior" hellbent on making the world safe for democracy, Wilson saw the war as a way to make Wilson the most important player on the world's stage and nothing more. He was going to be the one to bring the warring powers to their senses, he was going to be the one to impose a peace which was honorable for all sides, and he was going to be the savior of civilization.

Wilson wasn't pro-Entente, pro-Central Powers, or even particularly pro-US. Wilson was pro-Wilson and nothing more.

... there was also the issue of the blockade, which did interfere with the London Declaration in that the British decided to unilaterally redefine contraband as everything, something not covered in the treaty...
The US ambassador explained the huge differences between the British blockade and the German blockade to the Kaiser and I've explained the huge differences between the British blockade and the German blockade to you. It seems a recap is on order.

The worst effect on neutrals of the British blockade was an inconvenience and the worst effect of the German blockade on neutrals was death. Neutrals could and did negotiate with Britain about which cargoes could be seized and over compensation for seizures. Neutrals could not negotiate with German torpedoes over which cargoes were lost, which ships were sunk, and which men were killed.

In theory the two blockades were roughly comparable, in practice they were as different as trespass is different from murder.

... finally his 14 points...
His 14 Points were a bunch of utter nonsense only meant to make Wilson look like the savior of the world. Wilson didn't even fight for them at Versailles, definitely included a "color line" in their scope, and if various bunches of nationalists and revolutionaries worldwide either appropriated them for their own use or were naive enough to mistake an exercise in vanity for an actual policy that's their problem.

(Russian empire, Britain with Ireland, France with Corsica and Breton, not to mention the efforts to suppress regionalism throughout the nation, often through violating human rights).
When you compared Britain and France to Czarist Russia you lost all credibility and, when you imposed 2011 beliefs regarding human rights to 1914-1919, you dug that hole even deeper.

It's time to stop crafting increasingly desperate excuses and face the facts. Remember when you were kind enough to explain to me why the internal politics if the A-H Empire meant Franz Joseph simply couldn't "scream and leap"? I'm returning that kindness now.
 
... had he denied, as any good diplomat would have...


That's part of the problem with WW1 in specific and the 1890-1914 period in general.

Wilhelmine Germany didn't have nearly enough good diplomats and didn't listen to the few she did have.
 

Commissar

Banned
Best Case scenario for the Entente:

The war continues till all the profits piled up by the Bondsmen Labor is utterly used up and every drop of blood shed by the lash is repaid by an equal amount shed by the sword.

Yes I'm paraphrasing Honest Abe's second inaugural address.
 
So a truly neutral US (or Wilson) wouldn't have provided the channel the Zimmerman telegram was transmitted with, thus it, reasonably, wouldn't have happened?


No.

In the OTL the telegram was transmitted by several routes and that could be done in an ATL too.

In the OTL, Britain intercepted the telegram several times on different systems. Because one of the systems used was the neutral cable Wilson had violated international law to provide Germany with access to, Britain naturally played up that transmission route when it released the telegram.
 

Deleted member 1487

No.

In the OTL the telegram was transmitted by several routes and that could be done in an ATL too.

In the OTL, Britain intercepted the telegram several times on different systems. Because one of the systems used was the neutral cable Wilson had violated international law to provide Germany with access to, Britain naturally played up that transmission route when it released the telegram.

Actually they didn't until the Germans admitted to the US that the telegram was real. The Brits wanted to keep it a secret that they were monitoring the US diplomatic cable, as that was a major breech of diplomatic etiquette and they wanted to avoid angering Wilson as they sought his help and to convince him of the wickedness of Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
"But the British had two problems: they had to explain to the Americans how they got the ciphertext of the Telegram, without telling the Americans about the British intelligence operation monitoring neutral diplomatic traffic; and they had to have a public explanation of how they had the Telegram's deciphered text without revealing to Germany that they had broken the German code.
The British solved the first problem by also getting the ciphertext of the Telegram from the telegraph office in Mexico. The British guessed that the German Embassy in Washington would relay the message by commercial telegraph, so the Mexican telegraph office would have the ciphertext. "Mr. H.", a British agent in Mexico, bribed an employee of the commercial telegraph company for a copy of the message (Sir Thomas Hohler, then British ambassador in Mexico, claims to have been Mr. H in his autobiography). This ciphertext could be passed to the Americans without embarrassment. The retransmission was enciphered using cipher 13040, which Britain had captured a copy of in Mesopotamia, so by mid-February the British had the complete text."
 
Actually they didn't until the Germans admitted to the US that the telegram was real.


Yes, but they still did it, didn't they?

And it was a major breach of diplomatic ethics to monitor a US cable, but so was using the same cable to propose an alliance with Mexico to make war on the US.
 

Deleted member 1487

You're looking at the issue from the wrong perspective.

You cannot examine US policies from an Entente or Central Powers point of view. Instead, you must examine US policies from a US point of view alone.

The US policies in question were pro-US. Period.

It is true that US policies were more often "in synch" with the desires of the Entente than the desires of the Central Powers, but that's because the economic boom the US was very much enjoying was a direct result of Entente purchases. If purchases by the Central Powers had been fueling the US economy instead, US policies would have been more "in synch" with Central Powers' desires.

This "bias" you continually mention was nothing more than customer service. Your assumptions regarding the issue are also exactly backwards. US policies didn't initiate or form US economic support to the Entente. Instead, Entente economic penetration of the US helped shape US policies.
The "US" as a nation was acting as you say: in their own interests. The administration of Wilson was a different story. When I said the "US" was biased, I was referring the presidential administration, a part of the "US" rather than the whole thing. It seems you misunderstood my reference.

Wilson was only pro-Wilson and his most vocal critics up to the events of March 1917 were those who felt he wasn't doing enough to help the Entente.

Wilson "knew" deep down in his soul that he was the smartest, best educated, wisest, and most noble man in the room when in fact he was a stiff-necked racist prig with barely concealed autocratic tendencies. Until the Zimmerman Telegram turned him into a "holy warrior" hellbent on making the world safe for democracy, Wilson saw the war as a way to make Wilson the most important player on the world's stage and nothing more. He was going to be the one to bring the warring powers to their senses, he was going to be the one to impose a peace which was honorable for all sides, and he was going to be the savior of civilization.
No Wilson was softly pro-Entente. He did not want to involve the US in the war, though he was interested in 'softly' aiding the Entente by looking the other way. He realized the nation was deeply divided on the war and didn't want to cause a major public split by being overtly pro-Entente in national policy, however privately he expressed interest in seeing the Entente win, as they "had justice on their side". I would characterize the man as you have above, however, he wasn't solely out for himself. He wanted what was in the best interest of the US as far as his ideals were concerned, which he felt an Entente victory was part of. Its just that an overt display of pro-Entente policy was politically impossible and he wanted to remain president, as well as not get involved in Imperial European matters, which he despised.

Sure he had his critics that he wasn't going enough to aid the Entente, but he also was criticized for helping them too. He tried to strike a middle road that left the US militarily out of the war, but still support the "right side".

Wilson wasn't pro-Entente, pro-Central Powers, or even particularly pro-US. Wilson was pro-Wilson and nothing more.
Again, I don't entirely agree. I was pro-Wilsonian ideals, one of which was to see the 'just' side win without hurting his political career or the US by engaging in a war most people did not want a part of.

The US ambassador explained the huge differences between the British blockade and the German blockade to the Kaiser and I've explained the huge differences between the British blockade and the German blockade to you. It seems a recap is on order.

The worst effect on neutrals of the British blockade was an inconvenience and the worst effect of the German blockade on neutrals was death. Neutrals could and did negotiate with Britain about which cargoes could be seized and over compensation for seizures. Neutrals could not negotiate with German torpedoes over which cargoes were lost, which ships were sunk, and which men were killed.

In theory the two blockades were roughly comparable, in practice they were as different as trespass is different from murder.

There were massive differences between the British and German blockade, but I wasn't discussing that issue. My maritime law the British were not allowed to block neutral shipping from entering German ports, so long as they did not have contraband. Food was not contraband pre-war, but the British did redefine it as such, as with all trade goods, and prevented any ships from docking with German ports that they could. Granted the blockade was much more than just keeping ships away, it was monopolizing trade and cutting deals with suppliers, but nevertheless it still did involve preventing any trade with Germany.

That was the entire point of WJB conflict with the Wilson administration, as US companies were no longer allowed to directly trade with Germany, AH, Bulgaria, or the Ottoman Empire, which was in direct violation of neutral rights in maritime law, not the London Declaration. Wilson and his cabinet chose to overlook this, despite being guaranteed Entente trade and regardless of their policy toward the blockade. In that regard Wilson was pro-Entente because he did not make an issue of the violation of neutral, specifically US, trade rights in time of war, something that was already agreed on before the non-implemented London agreement.

What you are arguing above has nothing to do with the argument at hand, that the British did violate international law with their version of the blockade. If you'd like to start another discussion about the differences between the German and British blockade we can, but it'd be pretty boring because I'd agree with you.


His 14 Points were a bunch of utter nonsense only meant to make Wilson look like the savior of the world. Wilson didn't even fight for them at Versailles, definitely included a "color line" in their scope, and if various bunches of nationalists and revolutionaries worldwide either appropriated them for their own use or were naive enough to mistake an exercise in vanity for an actual policy that's their problem.

When you compared Britain and France to Czarist Russia you lost all credibility and, when you imposed 2011 beliefs regarding human rights to 1914-1919, you dug that hole even deeper.

It's time to stop crafting increasingly desperate excuses and face the facts. Remember when you were kind enough to explain to me why the internal politics if the A-H Empire meant Franz Joseph simply couldn't "scream and leap"? I'm returning that kindness now.

I think you are starting to purposely misconstrue my arguments. I did not equate the British and French with the Russians; rather I grouped them together to make my argument because they were the Entente, just as I grouped the Germans, AH, Bulgarians and Ottomans despite these nations having different records of treating their minorities and allowing self governance.

You seem to have a fetish for trying to discredit my arguments by tossing around phrases like "lost all credibility" when purposely interpreting my arguments in the way that helps you win. I'm calling Straw Man.
I'm not 'imposing my 2011' views of human rights on the situation and I challenge you to cite exactly where I do that. I'm using 1914-1918 values to note that Wilson did not apply the same standards in his 14 points to the Entente and Central Powers. Honestly of all nations at that time, the worst offender by the standards of the day were the Russians, both in restrictive governance and atrocities against their own people, probably worse than even the Ottomans when it came to brutality (before the Armenians that is).

That doesn't even get into the colonial empires either, which people of the day did not particularly concern themselves with, despite brutal policies there (the one exception being the Belgian Congo).

Wilson did fight for his 14 points, but dropped them to get the League of Nations created. He couldn't get everything he wanted, so he just chose what he felt was the most important point. Besides, some of it was already mooted by the situation on the group and the lack of will to press others.

Insulting me and calling it a kindness if quite a leap. You can keep that sort of kindness and argue without resulting to blanket condemnations of my points, which often don't relate to what I'm even discussing.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes, but they still did it, didn't they?

And it was a major breach of diplomatic ethics to monitor a US cable, but so was using the same cable to propose an alliance with Mexico to make war on the US.

Though German culpability is beside the point when discussing how the British decided to reveal how they go the telegram in the first place, I can't seem to find how and the US discovered the Germans used their cables to send it. I assume the US made the connection because the only access to the transatlantic cables was through their embassy in Berlin, while the Brits supposed just picked up the message at the Western Union station in Mexico City rather than through monitoring the cable itself.
 
Wilson was bent on trying to negotiate a peace, not seeing to an Entente victory, to the point that his own ambassador to Great Britain, after seeing the text of the Zimmerman telegram, concluded that this would mean war between any two nations but that he was still not sure what Wilson would do.


Don Lardo, wiking, it wasn't a breach of diplomatic ethics to monitor German communications and it was the US's poor luck if someone followed German communications to an unexpected place...also the British didn't have the codes for American messages but only for the German ones.

In fact the infamous telegram was sent three different ways and the British got all three of them.

The British capture of German code 13040 was an effort in two parts, one in Belgium and the other in Persia, the latter involving a remarkly obtuse German officer who barely escaped and began screaming about his baggage being seized by the British. Until word of this reached London no one in the UK had thought twice about this but the legendary head of the British code breakers had an eerie sense for these matters, asked for the location of the baggage, found it in London and decided to search and see what he might find...

The incident in Mexico City was an amusing one in itself starting a counterfeiter, a printing shop and everyone associated with the shop going insane when they realized a capital crime had been committed on the premises.



wiking, the British told the Americans exactly where they could find the German messages and simply offered access to the code breakers to translate. London casually thus let Wilson know that they were indeed aware of what was being transmitted on the cable.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Wilson was bent on trying to negotiate a peace, not seeing to an Entente victory, to the point that his own ambassador to Great Britain, after seeing the text of the Zimmerman telegram, concluded that this would mean war between any two nations but that he was still not sure what Wilson would do.


Don Lardo, wiking, it wasn't a breach of diplomatic ethics to monitor German communications and it was the US's poor luck if someone followed German communications to an unexpected place...also the British didn't have the codes for American messages but only for the German ones.

In fact the infamous telegram was sent three different ways and the British got all three of them.
Wilson's views on the war changed during it, which is why by late 1916, having been rebuffed by the Entente during Wilson's negotiation attempts, he finally decided they were not for justice after all and decided the only way to bring them to the table was to cut off loans and prevent an outright victory by any side. It was more important to end the war and prevent communist revolution than wait for an Entente victory, which he felt wasn't all that good anymore anyway.

In 1914 he was certainly pro-Entente in a soft way that did not inconvenience him, but by 1917 he wanted the war to be over by negotiation and neither side to win. But still he wanted several things that would be favorable to the Entente in the final peace, such as Belgium being completely restored and paid off, Alsace-Lorraine returned, AH basically neutered, and the Ottoman Empire broken up. The only 'loss' he wanted to see on the pre-war Entente territory was an independent Poland with access to the sea, which was all held by the Central Powers.
While none of these things is bad to us in 2011 ;) at the time they would have been a major blow the German position and politically unacceptable in most ways to the Central Powers. They might have satisfied Wilsonian ideals and only been 'pro-Entente' coincidentally, but nevertheless they represented a bias against the Central Powers' position at the negotiating table.
Of course the German position was freakin' insane by that point, but 3 years of brutal war with over a million dead made people want some sort of reward for their sacrifices


wiking, the British told the Americans exactly where they could find the German messages and simply offered access to the code breakers to translate. London casually thus let Wilson know that they were indeed aware of what was being transmitted on the cable.
Indeed, but this involved them presenting the situation as having stumbled upon it while monitoring the Western Union station rather than monitoring the cables. IIRC the Brits had broken US codes as well, but were focusing on the German transmissions. The monitoring itself was still 'unseemly' even if they weren't trying to monitor the US transmissions.
 
Wilson was bent on trying to negotiate a peace, not seeing to an Entente victory, to the point that his own ambassador to Great Britain, after seeing the text of the Zimmerman telegram, concluded that this would mean war between any two nations but that he was still not sure what Wilson would do.


It's rather telling that even Wilson's hand picked ambassador didn't what Wilson would do.

Don Lardo, wiking, it wasn't a breach of diplomatic ethics to monitor German communications and it was the US's poor luck if someone followed German communications to an unexpected place...also the British didn't have the codes for American messages but only for the German ones.

That's quite true. You can monitor without breaking the "seal" as it were.

The British capture of German code 13040 was an effort in two parts, one in Belgium and the other in Persia.... The incident in Mexico City was an amusing...

I see we've read the same books.

wiking, the British told the Americans exactly where they could find the German messages and simply offered access to the code breakers to translate. London casually thus let Wilson know that they were indeed aware of what was being transmitted on the cable.

Again, exactly. Britain handed over the encrypted message, the decrypted plain text, and the encryption keys. The US then went it's own transmission records, found a copy of the encrypted message, used the key Britain provided, and produced the same plain text Britain had.

As damning as all that was, Zimmerman sealed the deal with his two admissions.
 
Top