USA Dosent Loan to Entente in WW1

TinyTartar

Banned
like Canada?

*waits for Dr. What to start frothing at the mouth*

The idea of the British giving away minor imperial possessions is not unheard of. Destroyers for bases and all of that. Canada however does not fit the bill.

Maybe something like Bermuda or the Caymans or maybe even Belize (US companies wanted territory in Central America quite badly).
 
The idea of the British giving away minor imperial possessions is not unheard of. Destroyers for bases and all of that. Canada however does not fit the bill.

I know. One of the Clive Cussler books deals with the plot of 'the UK sold Canada to the US in WW1', which is incredibly poorly researched... and something that always drives Dr. What to near madness... :)
 
hypothetically, could the entente have done that as well?

No. The Entente did not have the industrial capacity to compete with the Central Powers until the USA joined. Therefore, they had to buy vast quantities of material abroad. This doesn't concern just military material, which wasn't even available to buy in large quantities until years into the war, but entente purchasing everything else it needed from abroad allowed them to mobilize more of the domestic industry for war production.

I sincerely doubt the USA could pass a bill that effectively prohibited loans to foreign governments before or early in the WWI. The Neutrality Acts were only possible because everyone remembered WWI, and the sour feelings in the USA about the war after it happened. Trying to pass a similar legislation in the 00's or 10's would lead to opposition on grounds of unconstitutional meddling in private affairs by the government.
 
how about an neutral loans act? to the extent that the amount loaned to the entente has to be equal to the amount loaned to the centrals (or that the amounts delivered to the entente has to equal that delivered to the central, i specificly state delivered, not shipped (and confiscated by the entente)
 
how about an neutral loans act? to the extent that the amount loaned to the entente has to be equal to the amount loaned to the centrals (or that the amounts delivered to the entente has to equal that delivered to the central, i specificly state delivered, not shipped (and confiscated by the entente)

Not going to happen. Just how are you going to justify limiting how individuals in the US choose to invest their money? What article in the constitution gives you that right? Anyone who tried would literally be laughed out of the congress. Remember, this is right in the middle of the gilded age. The US government needed the first world war and the great depression to gain the kind of power to pass the neutrality laws, and even those got repealed pretty damn soon after they actually had any effect.
 
It should be pointed out that many Americans were very much interested in the idea of staying neutral. They perhaps would be inclined to lend popular support of making the rich class tie the American economy to the Entente and force America to support them. If they don't, a campaign by Wilson and other peace advocates could bring them into that frame of mind. Just a possibility, not sure how plausible.
 
Not going to happen. Just how are you going to justify limiting how individuals in the US choose to invest their money? What article in the constitution gives you that right? Anyone who tried would literally be laughed out of the congress. Remember, this is right in the middle of the gilded age. The US government needed the first world war and the great depression to gain the kind of power to pass the neutrality laws, and even those got repealed pretty damn soon after they actually had any effect.

The Embargo Act of 1807 comes to mind as an unpopular economic embargo on Europe during a time of European War that was passed. I realize that different times call for different measures, but I don't think a restriction of loans would be considered unconstitutional.
 
The Embargo Act of 1807 comes to mind as an unpopular economic embargo on Europe during a time of European War that was passed. I realize that different times call for different measures, but I don't think a restriction of loans would be considered unconstitutional.

After reports of the carnage of the war is seen in newsreels, will people be eager to avoid it enough to support such a bill?
 
did Germany have a bottomless pit of money in WW1?

because I have never seen a comment, thread or scenario where Germany has money troubles in WW1 (at most it's food troubles), it's ALWAYS the entente who run out of money and throw in the towel.

If you have seen those other threads where the Entente run out of money, you would have seen the answer to your question posted on every one of those threads.
 
Top