WI the Germans destroyed the Statue of Liberty in 1916?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tom_explosion

In 1916 German saboteur agents set-out to destroy munitions destined for Russia. They set a fire and caused an explosion that among other destruction, caused some minor damages to the Statue of Liberty some distance away.

If the resulting explosion had been bigger and it actually caused the destruction of the statue how would the American public and government had reacted knowing Germany was behind this?
 

Md139115

Banned
Considering this is only a year after the Lusitania, Wilson is going to have to declare war or lose reelection.

Knowing him though, he’d probably rather lose reelection.
 
The Wiki article is very incomplete. This Smithsonian article isa bit better https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/sabotage-in-new-york-harbor-123968672/ The NT Times article has some other missing bits. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/...rism-has-a-modest-legacy-100-years-later.html

Considering this is only a year after the Lusitania, Wilson is going to have to declare war or lose reelection.

Knowing him though, he’d probably rather lose reelection.

The slow and weak investigation allowed Wilson to believe the event was not German originated. Wilson, like many Americans was unwilling to think the Germans would do anything like this. Many saw the German immigrants as honest, smart, hardworking, and nearly as good as real Americans (WASP) Electoral politics entered into it as the 'German' vote was important in many areas. For at least 1916 the popular view was the Black Tom Explosion was a industrial accident resulting from criminally sloppy operations by the railroad and freight companies operating the dock. Since the operations were criminally sloppy that version has been in circulation a very long time. In the 1960s one of my school books referred to the event as a accident that contributed to inflaming US German relations. Accusations of German guilt were in circulation, but were often dismissed as British propaganda.

Since industrial accidents on this scale were not uncommon a century ago, re: the Halifax Explosion, the idea this was also just a accident was fairly credible.
 
If somehow German agents were caught and confessed, along with evidence that they acting under German orders, it could force Wilson's hand. Declare War or be impeached.
 
A Black Tom big enough to destroy the Statue of Liberty ("how" would be my question there) is also going to be big enough to cause massive damage to New Jersey, New York Harbor and probably even Lower Manhattan. As much as I adore her, the Lady will be the least of anyone's worries.
 

Deleted member 94680

I think it was an attempt to be "edgy" and compare it to the Iraq war.

I kinda get that, but again - why Japan? Given it was a German agent that allegedly planted the explosives and America eventually went to War with Germany, what's Japan go to do with it?
 
I kinda get that, but again - why Japan? Given it was a German agent that allegedly planted the explosives and America eventually went to War with Germany, what's Japan go to do with it?

I think the irrelevance is also part of the point, the way Iraq wasn't exactly linked to 9/11.
 
Even without the destruction of the Statue of Liberty if the Black Tom explosion had been quickly and definitively tied to German saboteurs Wilson would have had a hard time maintaining his anti-war neutral stance. In 1916 I think he would have done it but it would have cost him politically.
 
A Black Tom big enough to destroy the Statue of Liberty ("how" would be my question there) is also going to be big enough to cause massive damage to New Jersey, New York Harbor and probably even Lower Manhattan. As much as I adore her, the Lady will be the least of anyone's worries.

It's not the explosion that damaged the statue, it was the shells and shrapnel thrown off. A couple of shells went through the arm. A handful more in just the right place and it would have collapsed.
 
Britian was not the popular Churchillian ally of WWII in 1916. At the time there was Brit interference with US goods to Germany via neutrals. What would happen with US opinion if a British agent or sympathizer caused a destructive event?
 
It's not the explosion that damaged the statue, it was the shells and shrapnel thrown off. A couple of shells went through the arm. A handful more in just the right place and it would have collapsed.
I know that - I worked on Liberty Island as park ranger. But "a handful more" wouldn't have brought her down. You would need a massive explosive force to do that.
 
Britian was not the popular Churchillian ally of WWII in 1916. At the time there was Brit interference with US goods to Germany via neutrals. What would happen with US opinion if a British agent or sympathizer caused a destructive event?

I believe however by 1916 the US sympathies while still for neutrality had shifted to siding more with the allies over Germany due to the reports on the Rape of Belgium and the Lusitania.
 
True, but a blundering British agent could have damaged that sympathy. Judging from the venom evident with my Irish ancestored relatives in the 1950s they'd been howling for English blood in 1916.
 

Geon

Donor
Another thread discussed this not too long ago.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...estroys-the-statue-of-liberty-in-1916.409706/

But here is the comment I made in that particular thread.

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
 
In such a case the Entente might decide to break up the German Empire as they did A-H and the Ottomans. I am not sure if this would last, but they might not want a central government.
 
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

How? Assuming two decades (let's say out to 1938) then likely the events that propelled the Nazis to power IOTL have been butterflied away (e.g., no Reichstag fire). Hitler's getting older, and probably having to deal with multiple fractious elements in the movement that will hinder a power grab. Make it three decades and quite possibly Hitler's time has come and gone. There might be a group called the Nazis, but I have to wonder how much that group would resemble what we know as Nazis IOTL.
 
Top