WI: The Black Tom explosion destroys the Statue of Liberty in 1916?

So this might be a little bit of an obscure or strange one, but for those who don't know, the Black Tom was a large island in the bay of New York City that was not far from Liberty Island, which had been developed into a shipping port, expanded through the use of landfill and eventually annexed by Jersey City. By 1916, it was home to a massive, mile long pier that was covered in warehouses that made the island into one of the most important ordnance storage locations for the entire north east of the United States, a place where any international buyer could come and pick up weaponry without limits.

But on the 30th of July, 1916, Russia was awaiting shipment of an order for some two million pounds of small arms and artillery ammunition, all of which was stored in the depot in the form of freight cars and on barges, including over a hundred thousand pounds of dynamite on a barge that was waiting at the pier just to avoid a towing charge.

But just after midnight, a number of fires were found, later determined to be the work of Imperial German saboteurs...and despite the best efforts of firefighters, there was an enormous explosion, so powerful that it was measured between 5 and 5.5 on the Richter scale and causing people in Maryland to be woken up in the middle of the night thinking that there had been an earthquake.

Black_Tom_E_LSP.jpg


Shrapnel flew as far away as the Jersey Journal building and got lodged in its clocktower, stopping the clock at the time of the detonation, windows were shattered in lower Manhattan and metal fragments were even lodged in the Statue of Liberty, causing damage to the skirt and to the arm that has resulted in it being closed off to visitors ever since.

But what if things went a little bit differently that night?

What if there had been a clerical error or another order that caused another large shipment of ammunition to be at the Black Tom's pier that night, resulting in an even larger blast? Or what if the barge was underway and passing by the island when it was consumed by fire and detonated? Regardless of how it happens, what if the Statue of Liberty is destroyed in the process?

How will the American populace and the government of the United States react when they find out that one of their most iconic landmarks had been destroyed as the result of an act of German sabotage that had gone out of control? Could this be enough to bring the US into the war early, or to ramp up preparations, or could this sight of destruction at home somehow drive them further into isolation? How will the powers at war in Europe respond to the news, especially France who sent the statue and Germany whose actions would have been responsible for bringing the statue down?

I'll freely admit that this part of history is outside my field of knowledge, so I'll be happy to hear what anyone has to say! :D
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Frankly, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if this would be viewed as the U.S.'s equivalent of 9/11 in this TL, but 85 years earlier! :(
 

Geon

Donor
A lot will depend on when/if the U.S, govt. discovers the blast wasn't an accident.

Wilson was very keen to keep the U.S. out of the war in Europe and in OTL hushed the matter up so that the official cause of the explosion was ruled "accidental." In this case? It's probable, but not absolutely certain that the U.S. declares war on the Central Powers. Except this time the public level of anger is equal to that of Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Wilson is given carte blanche to do what needs to be done to end the threat of the "Huns."

German-Americans likely have a very difficult time for the next year and a half. Meantime the U.S. gets ready for war in Europe. And this time it is likely that the war is fought not to an armistice but until Germany unconditionally surrenders. The same goes for the other Central Powers. The war would probably last for 2 years, maybe 3 at most. Once Germany collapses and surrenders the peace terms will make what was offered in OTL in Versailles seem mild by comparison. It is likely parts of Germany would be under occupation for the next two to four decades.

In my opinion this still causes the Nazis to come to the forefront. What happens from there is up for further discussion
 

CaliGuy

Banned
In my opinion this still causes the Nazis to come to the forefront. What happens from there is up for further discussion
Couldn't the more solid butt-kicking in this TL result in less support for militarism and revanche in Germany in this TL, though?
 

Geon

Donor
The treaty of Versailles actually fueled German militarism and a desire for revenge. Can you imagine how anything harsher would be even more resented? Likely the U.S. becomes Nazi enemy #1 after France and Russia.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The treaty of Versailles actually fueled German militarism and a desire for revenge. Can you imagine how anything harsher would be even more resented? Likely the U.S. becomes Nazi enemy #1 after France and Russia.
The post-WWII peace that Germany ended up getting in our TL was much harsher than Versailles and yet didn't result in new German aggression, though.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The cause of German aggression was not the peace treaty per se, but a combination of that and the misapprehension that they had not been defeated militarily - it felt like the treaty imposed on a defeated power, which they did not feel themselves to be.

If the Entente had pushed on to and over the Rhine, then I don't think you'd see the same revanchism - and you wouldn't see the Weimar Republic's apparatus directly blamed for the humiliation as it was OTL (the Generals managed to quite successfully blame the "capitulation" on the civilian government.)

ED: and the reason for the halt OTL was that it was felt that the French were largely a spent force, while the US had not yet geared up to the extent it could take an equivalent share of the warfighting burden - so the casualties would all be British. In an ATL with earlier US support, you could see all three of the major Western Entente powers being able to keep pushing in 1917-18... while at the same time the Germans have to take the pressure off the Russians!

It's got the scope for a very different postwar world, one with (say) Mensheviks in Russia...
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The cause of German aggression was not the peace treaty per se, but a combination of that and the misapprehension that they had not been defeated militarily - it felt like the treaty imposed on a defeated power, which they did not feel themselves to be.

If the Entente had pushed on to and over the Rhine, then I don't think you'd see the same revanchism - and you wouldn't see the Weimar Republic's apparatus directly blamed for the humiliation as it was OTL (the Generals managed to quite successfully blame the "capitulation" on the civilian government.)

ED: and the reason for the halt OTL was that it was felt that the French were largely a spent force, while the US had not yet geared up to the extent it could take an equivalent share of the warfighting burden - so the casualties would all be British. In an ATL with earlier US support, you could see all three of the major Western Entente powers being able to keep pushing in 1917-18... while at the same time the Germans have to take the pressure off the Russians!

It's got the scope for a very different postwar world, one with (say) Mensheviks in Russia...
Two questions:

1. Didn't Germany's military also implode in 1918 as a result of soldiers being no longer willing to risk their lives for a lost cause?
2. In spite of the fact that France was bled dry, was France genuinely a "spent force" in 1918? Also, even if so, why exactly couldn't Britain have sustained a lot of casualties?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
1. Didn't Germany's military also implode in 1918 as a result of soldiers being no longer willing to risk their lives for a lost cause?
Well, yes, but that's kind of the point - OTL the German army was incapable of further resistance, but they weren't actually forced back onto German soil and as such the generals were able to act as if they'd not been beaten.

2. In spite of the fact that France was bled dry, was France genuinely a "spent force" in 1918? Also, even if so, why exactly couldn't Britain have sustained a lot of casualties?
France wasn't bled dry, so much as that French ability to sustain casualties and keep up the offensive was dropping. The British would have had to do the main force of the offensive fighting (they'd finally built their army into a truly professional mass army, perhaps the best in the world that year) and soaked up a lot of the casualties - and, knowing what they knew then, the British government were unwilling to take so many British casualties if they'd have to do all the fighting. They were capable of it, the British army was still strong and well-led, but they weren't willing to pay so steep a blood price.
 
CaliGuy said: [URL='https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/goto/post?id=14190705#post-14190705']↑[/URL]
1. Didn't Germany's military also implode in 1918 as a result of soldiers being no longer willing to risk their lives for a lost cause?
Well, yes, but that's kind of the point - OTL the German army was incapable of further resistance, but they weren't actually forced back onto German soil and as such the generals were able to act as if they'd not been beaten.

Fighting on their home soil may well have stiffened their resistance.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Fighting on their home soil may well have stiffened their resistance.
Given how badly the Germans were being torn up when they were being pushed back towards Germany, I have my doubts. You have to realize that by the end of the Hundred Days Offensive the Allies were managing four miles a day on average, every day - that's slow enough that logistics can keep up, but fast enough to get all the way back to Germany in another few weeks.

All indications are that, like the French and Russians in earlier years (but unlike the British, the only power not either fighting on home soil or facing that prospect...) the Germans had reached the end of their tether in morale terms. And unlike the French in 1917 there wasn't anyone to take up the slack.
 
Given how badly the Germans were being torn up when they were being pushed back towards Germany, I have my doubts. You have to realize that by the end of the Hundred Days Offensive the Allies were managing four miles a day on average, every day - that's slow enough that logistics can keep up, but fast enough to get all the way back to Germany in another few weeks.

All indications are that, like the French and Russians in earlier years (but unlike the British, the only power not either fighting on home soil or facing that prospect...) the Germans had reached the end of their tether in morale terms. And unlike the French in 1917 there wasn't anyone to take up the slack.

What you say is correct, of course, but your point hinges on morale and fighting on home soil is well known to change morale.

A few years later in WW2, a hopeless situation if ever there was one by the time the German were fighting on home soil, the Unconditional Surrender demand is generally credited with stiffening the morale of the defenders. It is not unreasonable to expect a similar change from OTL given the POD.

The Allies could easily (but at cost, of course) reach the Rhine and shell the Ruhr, but the Rhine is one hell of a barrier to cross in their situation. I expect that, given that this is 1918 and not 2001, there would have to be loud demands for peace negotiations at that time, with many still convinced that America should not interfere in Europe as Washington had warned.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If the Allies reach the Rhine, they're fighting on German soil. I think we're in agreement on that as a good stop line if German resistance is stiffening.

ED:

My case for an Allied victory is formed of three components:

1) The Allies OTL were winning in 1918.
2) With the Americans onstream earlier they'll be able to contribute earlier, and thus Allied strength will remain high.
3) Without the collapse of Russia (even if it happens as OTL it'll be in late 1917) the Germans cannot deploy the same amount of strength west in TTL 1917 as they did in OTL 1918.
 
Last edited:
Top