Unrestricted Submarine Warfare 1916

Admiral Halsey said:
You mean like after the Lusitania was sunk?
Can we put that chestnut to rest?:rolleyes: Lusitania was nothing but a convenient excuse. Germany offering to restore Texas to Mexico was what did it...

How long would it take the Admiralty to come to its senses in the face of earlier USW?
 
Can we put that chestnut to rest?:rolleyes: Lusitania was nothing but a convenient excuse. Germany offering to restore Texas to Mexico was what did it...

You do realize I was responding to another poster who said the moment a German sub sinks a ship with US citizens aboard it then the US is going to declare war.
 
Admiral Halsey said:
You do realize I was responding to another poster who said the moment a German sub sinks a ship with US citizens aboard it then the US is going to declare war.
I do. It needs to be killed regardless. No offense intended.
 
You mean like after the Lusitania was sunk? It wasn't American citizens being killed from USW that pushed the US into war(though it didn't hurt it) but the money being lost by American businesses from it.

Can we put that chestnut to rest?:rolleyes: Lusitania was nothing but a convenient excuse. Germany offering to restore Texas to Mexico was what did it...

How long would it take the Admiralty to come to its senses in the face of earlier USW?

The death of 1198 passengers and crew are not a convenient excuse, eider a chestnut, it's brutal murder !
It was not the 128 Americans were among the dead,
It was the way german Captain Walther Schwieger sank a defenseless Oceanliner and not help the Survivors who died of drowning or hypothermia.
This inhuman act of barbarism, was one reason why the Americans join the War.
 
The death of 1198 passengers and crew are not a convenient excuse, eider a chestnut, it's brutal murder !
It was not the 128 Americans were among the dead,
It was the way german Captain Walther Schwieger sank a defenseless Oceanliner and not help the Survivors who died of drowning or hypothermia.
This inhuman act of barbarism, was one reason why the Americans join the War.


Only in the very long term. There was never any question of war in 1915, except for a few commentators who were pro-Entente anyway.

What it did do was trigger the first of several notes from President Wilson, by the end of which he had "talked himself into a corner" to the point where if USW were resumed he would either have to go to war or eat his words - which he never found a tasty diet.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
That they did this tells me that SOMEBODY (Pound?) in the Admiralty had this bright idea when they ordered PQ-17 to scatter.
Actually that's because the raider they feared was the friggin' Tirpitz - a ship whose sister had, after all, blown Hood to smithereens. That's a case of a raider theoretically able to eat the entire convoy alive.

...though the brain tumor probably didn't help.
 
The death of 1198 passengers and crew are not a convenient excuse, eider a chestnut, it's brutal murder !
It was not the 128 Americans were among the dead,
It was the way german Captain Walther Schwieger sank a defenseless Oceanliner and not help the Survivors who died of drowning or hypothermia.
This inhuman act of barbarism, was one reason why the Americans join the War.

Inhuman brutality? What about nearly half a million deaths from the Blockade of Germany.

Also the Lusitania was also carrying war materials which made it a valid target. And they didn't think it was defenseless as officially it was a AMC officially

While it was true that Lusitania had been fitted with gun mounts as part of government loan requirements during her construction, to enable rapid conversion into an Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC) in the event of war, the guns themselves were never fitted. However, she was still listed officially as an AMC
 
Actually that's because the raider they feared was the friggin' Tirpitz - a ship whose sister had, after all, blown Hood to smithereens. That's a case of a raider theoretically (1) able to eat the entire convoy alive. (2)

...though the brain tumor probably didn't help. (3)

1) Yes. Assuming it could find the convoy.

2) Which happened anyway. Old battleship men making old battleship judgements because they still can't get their heads around the dangers of aircraft and submarines.

3) I didn't want to sound ghoulish by bringing that up. It would be like mentioning Truman's or Reagan's senility. At least Pound had that as a legitimate excuse. General Short had none.:mad:
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Inhuman brutality? What about nearly half a million deaths from the Blockade of Germany.

Also the Lusitania was also carrying war materials which made it a valid target. And they didn't think it was defenseless as officially it was a AMC officially

While it was true that Lusitania had been fitted with gun mounts as part of government loan requirements during her construction, to enable rapid conversion into an Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC) in the event of war, the guns themselves were never fitted. However, she was still listed officially as an AMC
That's a somewhat facetious argument - it's the same as saying that because the adult population of the US are theoretically able to be conscripted then they're all legitimate war targets.

As for the blockade - the Germans could, theoretically, have made up the shortfall of food by doing things like redirecting nitrates towards fertilizer rather than munitions. Or by drawing men off the front line to farm.
Yes, this would make them do less well in the war. That's kind of the point.






1) Yes. Assuming it could find the convoy.

2) Which happened anyway. Old battleship men making old battleship judgements because they still can't get their heads around the dangers of aircraft and submarines.

3) I didn't want to sound ghoulish by bringing that up. It would be like mentioning Truman's or Reagan's senility. At least Pound had that as a legitimate excuse. General Short had none.:mad:

It was a wrong decision, but it's something of an understandable one. The risk assessment was wrong, that's all there is to it - remember he had what looked like good intel that the Tirpitz had sailed. (The German high command only didn't send her out because of vacillation - and of course she'd have found the convoy if she sailed, the Germans managed to vector in attacks consistently and reliably.)

In any case, Pound wasn't someone unable to get his head around the dangers of subs, because he was the head of the Navy at the time of the winning of the Battle of the Atlantic.
 
The 1916 presidential election would have been fought on the German question (Roosevelt/Root '16: "Hang the Kaiser!").
Would it have been Roosevelt? After founding and running a competing party I'd be surprised if the Republicans just welcomed him back, especially after his splitting the vote helped Wilson win. Since Roosevelt seems to have been a supporter of Hughes I can't see him trying again but throwing his weight behind him. Although not knowing a great deal about American politics of the period I'd welcome being corrected if wrong.
 
Would it have been Roosevelt? After founding and running a competing party I'd be surprised if the Republicans just welcomed him back, especially after his splitting the vote helped Wilson win. Since Roosevelt seems to have been a supporter of Hughes I can't see him trying again but throwing his weight behind him. Although not knowing a great deal about American politics of the period I'd welcome being corrected if wrong.

No, you got it right. It was Hughes' turn, and Teddy was aging prematurely AIUI.
 
Rather than unrestricted submarine warfare the main factor seems to have been the Zimmerman telegram. Now Zimmerman actually mentions in it that Germany is going back to unrestricted submarine warfare, so if for some reason they were desperate enough to go back to it in 1916 do people think they would also make an approach to Mexico? There's also the question of even if they did of whether Gottlieb von Jagow, Zimmerman's predecessor as foreign minister for Germany, would be silly enough to admit it to the press or not.

If Wilson were defeated one interesting side-effect would be no Treaty of Versailles, there would still be a treaty of course but it would potentially be the Treaty of Geneva instead. Wilson apparently suggested Lausanne to House as a location before he left for Europe and Lloyd-George convinced him of the benefits of Geneva instead, Clemenceau initially proposed Versailles but doesn't seemed to have opposed Geneva, only for Wilson to change his mind a while later and absolutely rule out Switzerland. I've no idea if a more neutral location will do anything to change things, no Wilson sticking his oar in - he complicated matters by participating as head of state rather than sending his Secretary of State whilst Lloyd-George and Clemenceau were heads of government - as another possibility.
 
Inhuman brutality? What about nearly half a million deaths from the Blockade of Germany.

Also the Lusitania was also carrying war materials which made it a valid target. And they didn't think it was defenseless as officially it was a AMC officially

While it was true that Lusitania had been fitted with gun mounts as part of government loan requirements during her construction, to enable rapid conversion into an Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC) in the event of war, the guns themselves were never fitted. However, she was still listed officially as an AMC

Hell the Mary and Lucy were built with funds from the RN and were partially designed to specifically help speed up the transformation into an AMC if war broke out! I would also like to point out the captain of U-20 was actually horrified when he realized exactly what he had torpedoed. Also you expected him to help the survivors? You realize that being that close to the Irish shore(Ireland was still under British rule at the time) and with him having sunk the fucking Lusitania no way would the ships racing to the scene not first try to fucking sink him if he tried to help. Remember the first duty of a sub captain is always the safety of the sub and his crew.
 
It's difficult to see both parties running Pacifist platforms in the same election cycle. YES, the GOP became very Isolationist after WWI, but it was only through the craven reversals of longstanding positions by the likes of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge that this happened.

In 1916, the Republicans were very much the party of Interventionism. I doubt that Teddy throws his hat in in 1916 though. Not after the humiliation of 1912. And Wilson showed that he had no problems with picking up the sword when it came time for him to do so. After all, OTL Congress DoW'ed the Central Powers just a few months after Wilson started his second term.

But they both did run anti-war platforms, the Hughes was more into "preparedness." That's why I said timing is everything. If it happens late September and Wilson digs in his heels, Hughes doesn't jump at war but argues in favor of arming convoys like Wilson did in 1917 before going to war, and Teddy or someone else goes nuts and splits the Republican ticket and wants war.

The result is Wilson wins, and Wilson to save face stays out of the war...or at least does not declare war until 1918, which then he might have second thoughts when Russia drops out.
 
It's difficult to see both parties running Pacifist platforms in the same election cycle. YES, the GOP became very Isolationist after WWI, but it was only through the craven reversals of longstanding positions by the likes of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge that this happened.



What positions did Lodge abandon?

He had advocated entering the war (a position which afaik he never retracted) but had never taken any interest in Wilson's malarkey about a new international order. So he had nothing to reverse.
 
Simon said:
Rather than unrestricted submarine warfare the main factor seems to have been the Zimmerman telegram.
That, & what it contained, was undoubtedly the proximate cause, not Lusitania: it's not like USG could admit they'd read the Telegram, nor how.:rolleyes: Lusitania was a convenient cover.
Simon said:
Now Zimmerman actually mentions in it that Germany is going back to unrestricted submarine warfare, so if for some reason they were desperate enough to go back to it in 1916 do people think they would also make an approach to Mexico? There's also the question of even if they did of whether Gottlieb von Jagow, Zimmerman's predecessor as foreign minister for Germany, would be silly enough to admit it to the press or not.
IMO, the issue is, what does the U.S. do in response to USW? The Germans had been meddling in the U.S., & Mexico, for awhile before ZT, with the aim of diverting U.S. efforts from aiding the Entente. If the U.S. provides more aid to the Entente due to USW (which seems likely, tho I'm by no means expert), it seems likely also the Germans will increase efforts to distract the U.S.--& we're back to ZT (by another name...).

It's harder to change OTL outcomes than it may look at first....;)
 
That, & what it contained, was undoubtedly the proximate cause, not Lusitania: it's not like USG could admit they'd read the Telegram, nor how.:rolleyes: Lusitania was a convenient cover.

Lusitania was ancient history by the time of the ZT. No one mentioned it in 1917. Its only importance was that it had led Wilson to draw lines in the sand re USW, from which he would have had difficulty in retreating.


IMO, the issue is, what does the U.S. do in response to USW? The Germans had been meddling in the U.S., & Mexico, for awhile before ZT, with the aim of diverting U.S. efforts from aiding the Entente. If the U.S. provides more aid to the Entente due to USW (which seems likely, tho I'm by no means expert), it seems likely also the Germans will increase efforts to distract the U.S.--& we're back to ZT (by another name...).

It's harder to change OTL outcomes than it may look at first....;)

Actually, US help would have drastically declined, as the exhaustion of collateral would have prevented further loans being raised, hence curtailed imports from the US.
 
Mikestone8 said:
Lusitania was ancient history by the time of the ZT.
My point exactly.;)
Mikestone8 said:
Actually, US help would have drastically declined, as the exhaustion of collateral would have prevented further loans being raised, hence curtailed imports from the US.
Very possible. However, the U.S. knows perfectly well how important British & French banking is to the survival of the U.S. banking system... That being so, I can't imagine the U.S. would let them fall, credit limits or no.
 
My point exactly.;)

Very possible. However, the U.S. knows perfectly well how important British & French banking is to the survival of the U.S. banking system... That being so, I can't imagine the U.S. would let them fall, credit limits or no.


How do you mean "let them fall"? Wilson had no particular reason to think that they were in any serious danger of falling.

The British financial straits were a closely guarded secret, as was the scale of the U-boat menace (Admiral Sims was shocked in May when Jellicoe revealed to him how bad things were) while the French mutinies and the failure of the Kerensky Offensive were still in the future - and the former was another tightly kept secret even after it happened. The French didn't even tell their allies, let alone neutrals. As far as Wilson knew, he was joining the likely winners.
 
Top