Bomster
Banned
So really, simply keeping the US out of the war past Spring of 1917 causes a collapse of the Entente?
WI: US doesn't enter WW1?
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
if the British get desperate enough they might go for conscription in Ireland in early 1917.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1918
That could create more unrest in Ireland.
Bomster that is not only my thinking because I do not know how with 30% less steel and 70% less oil the Entente could continue.
It is the well documented thinking of the French, Russian and UK governments. Anybody saying those countries could have continued after summer 1917 would have to give very precise reasons why and argue precisely how because imho the governments of that time should be better judges of the availability of the Entente to wage war without the supplies from the USA then some guys on the Internet whose only answer to the question „how?“ is „somehow!“
It is the well documented thinking of the French, Russian and UK governments. Anybody saying those countries could have continued after summer 1917 would have to give very precise reasons why and argue precisely how because imho the governments of that time should be better judges of the availability of the Entente to wage war without the supplies from the USA then some guys on the Internet whose only answer to the question „how?“ is „somehow!“
The UK is not "broke". It doesn't have as many US$ as it would like. Even without US$ some US companies would accept payment in UK Government promises of post-war payment, trade concessions in the Empire, or even payment in £.
The problem for a CP victory scenario is that in terms of war exhaustion in 1918 the likely sequence of failures is the Ottomans and Austria Hungary before Italy or France. The only way for the CP to win is to knock out France early in 1918; they tried that and didn't really come close.
Aber they had to pay 400 million dollar back that they did not have. And that loan was to be paid back in dollar. If they were not able to (which they were not I trust the UK treasury more than I do some guy on the internet) they were broke.
Being broke means you cannot meet your obligations on time and that they could not.
Denying they were broke is just denying a fact.
Being broke means you cannot meet your obligations on time and that they could not.
Denying they were broke is just denying a fact.
NoMommsen
Donor
Well ... something happening everyday esp. regarding debts. Usually endig with a bailiff standing at your door.
Something rather difficult to enact if your debtor is a nation or even a world spanning empire ...
I' quite confident that the treasury and Morgans would have found a way to clear this overdraft i.e. by Morgans accepting some 'special' treaury bills and/or elongating the timeframe for repaying and/or 'arranging' some buisness across the border in/with Canada and/or something else I can't think of (not being a finance juggler at all).
However, Britains 'credit' would take a hefty hit almost down to nonexistance. Its ability to get 'fresh' money would be heavily curtailed if not backed by quite considerable shipping of gold. ... what the bank of England and the treasury were fighting to avoid as the devil avoids holy water.
Britains ability and willingness to support the other Entente members esp. the other two 'big ones' with abundend gold reserves - compared to Britain - but also all the smaller ones (Greece, Italy, serbian remnants, Belgium [remnants]).
Don't see why that would get much worse without WWIrecession of 1913-14
List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Recessions were very cyclical.
Boom Bust Repeat
1929 took very specialized set of conditions to setup
Haig argued strongly for this as it "would be good for Ireland." Not his most perceptive remark.
Where exactly did they have it?
If it isn't in the US then it's no use as collateral, since American creditors can't seize it.
Exactly that NoMonnsen. It usually ends up with nobody lending any more money to you. And without further loans no more supplies. And without those supplies, game over. And even if not, end 17 the shipping crisis will hit.
And it was not the USA that was loaning money to the UK it was private banks so any assets outside the USA or even colonies are no use.
And it was not the USA that was loaning money to the UK it was private banks so any assets outside the USA or even colonies are no use.
Good for Ireland in that it would encourage them to rebel against the empire.
Who would be interested in buying?
Congress coughed up $25 million for the DWI, but even if they ok'd similar amounts for a couple of other places, the total sum would be paltry compared to the billions which were loaned (unsecured) in 1917/18.
Nor do I understand how they could serve as collateral. How does JP Morgan , or any other bank, go about seizing a piece of foreign territory in case of default?
BTW, Newfoundland was then a self-governing dominion, and would be most unlikely to consent to being sold.
No bank is taking collaterals it cannot seize. That lesson has been imprinted into every banker since the dealings of the Fuggers with Karl V.
A government may force banks in its own nation to do so anyway but the UK could hardly do this with US banks.
And I wonder if the other loan contracts had a clause in them that in the moment the UK defaulted on other loans all other amounts could be cashed in immediately?
A government may force banks in its own nation to do so anyway but the UK could hardly do this with US banks.
And I wonder if the other loan contracts had a clause in them that in the moment the UK defaulted on other loans all other amounts could be cashed in immediately?
Last edited:
I am of the opinion that the most critical shortage the entente have without US entry into the war is a shortage of will.
I think without a US entry the entente face the prospect of either losing the war or winning the war and losing the peace.
Without the US I don't see them having the leverage to force a treaty like Versailles onto Germany and anything else leaves the Germans too strong.
I think without a US entry the entente face the prospect of either losing the war or winning the war and losing the peace.
Without the US I don't see them having the leverage to force a treaty like Versailles onto Germany and anything else leaves the Germans too strong.