WI: US doesn't enter WW1?

No it is much easier. Even if (and that if should be in bold and font size 200) the absolute wish dream of the Entente wins fraction becomes true against all available sources of OTL and the USA would allow unsecured loans to the UK...

then there are the following points.

1. How would the mutinies go without the USA in and without the promise of US troops coming? How to quell them? And that goes for the moral of all Entente troops.
2. The UK was running out of ships and fast. Even without USW the sinkings were far higher than the buildings. And without the help of the USN and the merchant shipping from the USA a convoy system is not possible.
3. Even the Germans would notice that suddenly unsecured loans were given meaning they know that the Entente is in the ropes. So no hastily and badly prepared offensive in March.
4. Even though the impact of the US troops was not that big until Jan 18 it was much more felt in March. Even if the missing troops in March made only 10 divisions it would have been enough for the Germans to break through. Haig actually stated 6 would have been enough,

One and two being the most important ones as they would have a direct short term impact. Latest Oct 17 the Entente would have to curtail operations massively due to the lack of imports due to the lack of shipping. And with that and the low moral of the troops it is the Entente asking for terms.

But again even this scenario is a pipe dream due to the fact that in April 17 the UK is broke and the USA has made it clear twice that no unsecured loans are going out. Anybody assuming otherwise so far has not brought up a shred of evidence it will change its mind.

Cryhavoc, waiting for sources that Wilson wanted to go to war Dec 16 or do you want to retreat that statement?
So really, simply keeping the US out of the war past Spring of 1917 causes a collapse of the Entente?
 
No it is much easier. Even if (and that if should be in bold and font size 200) the absolute wish dream of the Entente wins fraction becomes true against all available sources of OTL and the USA would allow unsecured loans to the UK...

then there are the following points.

1. How would the mutinies go without the USA in and without the promise of US troops coming? How to quell them? And that goes for the moral of all Entente troops.
2. The UK was running out of ships and fast. Even without USW the sinkings were far higher than the buildings. And without the help of the USN and the merchant shipping from the USA a convoy system is not possible.
3. Even the Germans would notice that suddenly unsecured loans were given meaning they know that the Entente is in the ropes. So no hastily and badly prepared offensive in March.
4. Even though the impact of the US troops was not that big until Jan 18 it was much more felt in March. Even if the missing troops in March made only 10 divisions it would have been enough for the Germans to break through. Haig actually stated 6 would have been enough,

One and two being the most important ones as they would have a direct short term impact. Latest Oct 17 the Entente would have to curtail operations massively due to the lack of imports due to the lack of shipping. And with that and the low moral of the troops it is the Entente asking for terms.

But again even this scenario is a pipe dream due to the fact that in April 17 the UK is broke and the USA has made it clear twice that no unsecured loans are going out. Anybody assuming otherwise so far has not brought up a shred of evidence it will change its mind.

Cryhavoc, waiting for sources that Wilson wanted to go to war Dec 16 or do you want to retreat that statement?
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!“
 
But again even this scenario is a pipe dream due to the fact that in April 17 the UK is broke and the USA has made it clear twice that no unsecured loans are going out. Anybody assuming otherwise so far has not brought up a shred of evidence it will change its mind.
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.
 
There is a big difference between no US direct entry to the war, without which the entente would still have won, and no US preferential treatment, without which the entente would be in a similar domestic crisis as the Central Powers.
 
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.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
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.
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]).
 
People keep bringing up the question of collateral for loans and equipment, particularly for America, and to a lesser extent other countries like Japan, and Spain during ww1. I simply showed that Britain did have extra collateral as well.
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.
 
Britain might be made to sell colonies to the US or put them up as collateral if desperation became great enough. Newfoundland, various Caribbean holdings, Diego Garcia, Bermuda, St Helena, etc.
 
Britain might be made to sell colonies to the US or put them up as collateral if desperation became great enough. Newfoundland, various Caribbean holdings, Diego Garcia, Bermuda, St Helena, etc.

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?
 
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' 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).
Exactly. "Pretend and extend" is a well trodden path.
 
Top