WI: 1916, Hughes as President, with no German "blunders". Is war inevitable?

OK, this requires two PODs (or maybe 1.5 POD). The first is that the Lusitania is not sunk, and the surge of anti-German feeling in America does not rise. Following this, butterflies cause the Germans to not adopt unrestricted submarine warfare.

The second is that Charles Evan Hughes manages to get himself elected President in the 1916 elections.

Now, would Hughes have been able to muster support for war against Germany in this relatively less anti-German environment, or would he have even wanted to go to war at all? And (obligatory question), would this have been enough to win Germany the war?

Or, was war more-or-less inevitable?
 
The main point would be the US loans. You'd have to specify in your POD how a different president affects the loans the US gave to the Allies. From my point of view, this aspect wouldn't change, so Hughes would be faced with the problem that a lot of money has been lent nad will be lost once the Allies loose the war - and without further loans or American help they will.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
If you go back and read the NY Times, you will see 3 phases in the news coverage. First pre-Lusitania, there is more an objective one with people coming in on both sides of war when there are editorials. More a "shame the Europeans are in a war, Germany is a little bit worse than UK". After Lusitania, you see switch to "Germany is bad, but most think we should stay out". Even TR, who was very pro-war with Germany", did not make his editorials until after the Lusitania. Then after we join, you get the "German are Huns". Avoid the Lusitania and other ships with large loss of American life, you probably have enough to keep USA out of war. Small, small things can turn history.

No resumption of USW is also enough to avoid entering the war.

You are new to the board, so it is hard to estimate the amount of knowledge you have on USW. USW was not binary. Germany always sank ships without warning in each month of the war. Germany always gave warning to some ships in every month of war. In fact, at times USW had a higher rate of warning than non-USW. You have the cause and effect wrong. Lusitania did not cause butterflies in USW. Sinking of the passenger ships and the PR campaign were a deliberate choice made in USW. The Kaiser/naval high command were trying to intimidate people for not evening trying to sail to the UK. The second USW was aimed at much as intimation of Norwegian hulls as anything else. In fact, take away the one shot at the Lusitania (say orders say to let passenger liners pass) and the announcement of USW (wiser German strategy), i am not even sure the USA would have know the Germans changed the rules of engagement.
 

katchen

Banned
I suspect that Hughes would take the United States into war--but in a much more nationalistic manner. More like Theodore Roosevelt. Much less moralistic. No 14 points. No attempt to tell nations that it was somehow illegal or immoral to annex territory after a war or to transfer populations after a war. No League of Nations. So it would make a very interesting time line indeed to try to figure out what the world would look like with a Hughes Presidency, US involvement in WWI and no Wilsonianism, no League of Nations and no 14 Points. What WOULD the new international order look like? Answering that question might be more interesting than the conduct of the war itself.
 
The main point would be the US loans. You'd have to specify in your POD how a different president affects the loans the US gave to the Allies. From my point of view, this aspect wouldn't change, so Hughes would be faced with the problem that a lot of money has been lent nad will be lost once the Allies loose the war - and without further loans or American help they will.


Not a problem as yet. All the loans so far made were secured on Allied (mainly British) property or investments in the US. So the lenders don't lose their money even in the case of a default.

There's a problem if Hughes reverses Wilson's policy and gives the go-ahead to unsecured loans (OTL these were ok'd only after America entered the war) but I don't see any obvious reason why he should. True, the House of Morgan (the principal lender) had supported him in the election, but that might be an argument against rather than for. Hughes valued his good name and wouldn't want to even look as if he had such sordid motives.

No USW = no war with America. Indeed, the Germans might even get away with USW, if they passed the word to their u-boat captains that it mustn't be applied to American ships.
 
I do wonder if it really is possible to avoid the 'blunders' though. Maybe the Lusitania makes port safely that run but that just encourages the rather laissez faire attitude to transatlantic travel and another incident happens sooner or later. Also given the US assistance to the Entente cause is it credible that the Germans wouldn't try and come up with some way to disrupt or stop it? And given the permeability of their codes how likely is it the British wouldn't uncover such measures and exploit them?

Add to that a determined British propaganda campaign in the US and I think it is hard to keep the US from getting drawn in at some point.
 
Hughes can't "take" the USA into the war without a cassus belli sufficient to get Congressional approval. This is prior to the War Powers Act and its predecessors, so the president can only ask Congress for a declaration of war. Without a valid reason I can't see Hughes doing this, especially if the balance of parties is close to OTL

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I haven't read much about USW but couldn't the Germans ask the Americans (Neutrals) for departure and route plans, so the submarines would know better if it is a feasible target or not.
Or the Germans could give them secure routes and it would be in Americas own interest to prevent british ships to also start using this routes?
It could be argued that it wasn't always possible to identify the nationality of the ship and the Germans wanted to prevent any possible incidents.
Maybe someone publishes 'secret british plans' to sink an US ship to provoke the USA into the war. It would only be part of propaganda but if a ship is lost and Germany vehemently deny any participation in this accident?
 
To avoid the US going to war, you need no unrestricted submarine warfare and no Zimmerman Telegram. Whomever is president this are the requirements.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I do wonder if it really is possible to avoid the 'blunders' though. Maybe the Lusitania makes port safely that run but that just encourages the rather laissez faire attitude to transatlantic travel and another incident happens sooner or later. Also given the US assistance to the Entente cause is it credible that the Germans wouldn't try and come up with some way to disrupt or stop it? And given the permeability of their codes how likely is it the British wouldn't uncover such measures and exploit them?

Add to that a determined British propaganda campaign in the US and I think it is hard to keep the US from getting drawn in at some point.


You can probably avoid the blunders that bring the USA into the war. Mistakes can still happen, but a ship like the Lusitania is big, distinctive, and has a fairly know route. Now Americans will still die in the war. American ships are still likely sunk, but without such a big body toll, it will be hard for America to get so upset. Friction is inevitable with the USA, war is not.

Most of the USA assistance was selling goods at a high profit (up to 6 to 1 pre war prices). Once the profit motive is gone (securable assets), the USA would tend to lean pro-German (complain about the blockade). A rational German makes a better decision. Wiking has the material on Falkenhayn being anti-USW. And even the internal German data showed USW did not increase the rate of sinking, it was the number of U-boats on station. So the Germans had every reason not to try USW. It is just a blunder against known facts at the time.

Don't see the codes helping that much. Outside of Zimmerman in WW1 and a few other big effects, it is not clear the broken codes helped that much. Due to the various errors in German navigation, decoding delays, and lack of good ASW weapons, it is not even clear breaking the codes helped the UK in fighting the U-boats.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I haven't read much about USW but couldn't the Germans ask the Americans (Neutrals) for departure and route plans, so the submarines would know better if it is a feasible target or not.
Or the Germans could give them secure routes and it would be in Americas own interest to prevent british ships to also start using this routes?
It could be argued that it wasn't always possible to identify the nationality of the ship and the Germans wanted to prevent any possible incidents.
Maybe someone publishes 'secret british plans' to sink an US ship to provoke the USA into the war. It would only be part of propaganda but if a ship is lost and Germany vehemently deny any participation in this accident?

Yes, Germans ask USA to paint its ships white. Germans asks USA to take measure to stop UK from flying USA flag. But Wilson refused, or more accurately, he was offended.

The problem with the Lusitania is that it was a UK ship. It was also a warship since on the official list of warships (reserve Auxillery). In reality, the USA should not have allowed it into port. Technically the rule was for 48 hours every 60 days. The USA should not have allowed non-UK civilians to board the ship, or at least USA civilians. It was a legal target. But then we get into Wilson odd personality.
 
Top