WI US ships were sunk by Royal Navy instead of by Kaiserliche Marine...?

Just like the title said, what if in WWI it was Royal Navy, not Kaiserliche Marine (German Navy), that sank several US ships and killed some of US citizens...?
Would Wilson declare war against United Kingdom? Would US join the Central Powers?
 
Not a comparable situation. Submarines can sink or do nothing, surface warships can divert merchant ships to friendly ports.
 
I agree with this impossibility of actions, as the Royal Navy had nothing to win by sinking neutral (USA remained neutral, I guess in this scenario), since it could as easily do something else to prevent Germany from getting trade and goods by seatrade. Since Royal Navy submarines were only involved in recon and patroll operations near the enemy coast in the Great War, the likelyhood of an attack on any neutral merchantship by a British sub was very limmitted. The more numereous surfaceships could use other forms of force to stop any merchant traveling to, or from Germany.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The U.S. had a substantial investment in the Entente war effort through huge loans and contracts to provide small arms, munitions and other material. That, apart from anything else, would tend to moderate any response.

There is also, as has been noted, the rather dramatic difference between unrestricted submarine warfare and the internationally accepted tactic of "stop and inspect". One results in piles of dead civilians regardless of what the vessel is carrying (or, critically, not carrying), the other usually results in a brief delay and either authorization to proceed or instruction to either return to point of origin or to a port controlled by the intervening power.

Failure to follow these orders would result in a vessel being disabled (a fairly easy matter for a surface warship against a merchant vessel), the passengers and crew allowed to move to a position of safety (normally the lifeboats), and the ship then either being taken as prize or sunk depneding on local circumstances. The warship is then responsible for ensuring that the passengers and crew are in a safe condition before departure (in practice this meant either towing the lifeboats to a safe harbor or taking them aboard the warship until they could be deposited at a port, either belonging to a neutral power or a friendly port). This entire process had been an accepted part of war for a century or more. It wasn't necessarily LIKED by neutral nations, but it was acknowledged as proper.

Unfortunately, this rather civilized method was utterly impossible for a submarine to follow, hence the term "unrestricted warfare". The practice of "sink without warning" of civilian vessels was (and still is actually) uncomfortably close to piracy, especially in the more genteel early years of the 20th Century (although the tactic was still more than a little questionable when employed by both the KM and USN in WW II). Pirate vs. professional naval officer. Who do you think will get condemned?
 
I can buy an accident leading to some US loss of life at the hands of the Royal Navy.

And so what? The RN would apologize, probably make some payments to families and so forth, and the whole incident would be mostly forgotten in a week.
 
-Concerning the thred title: As far as I know no American ships were sunken by Germany before the US entered WWI. The Lusitania... were British ships with Americans on board.

-As allready said above: The RN had no need to sink ships as it controlled the North Sea entrances and had no problems to intercept American vessels with surface ships and turn them around.
German Subs sunk ships because they were using hit-and-run tactics and because subs at that time were vulnerable to ramming (and the Admirality had ordered civilian ships to ram subs that try to stop them).

-The sinking of Lusitania ect. was not the only reason for the US entrance in the war, only the most popular. Others included: Zimmermann Telegram, supposed sabotages by German spys, close economic ties to England and worries that the Entente would be unable to repay their debts if they lose the war.
 
I agree with others who point out the practical differences between the British and German blockades, and that fact that, even though the RN blockade often violated neutral rights, the British never were in a position where they had to actually sink neutral ship to acheive the goal. The German submarines never had that luxury.

But what if one supposed the Germans never did adopt unrestricted submarine warfare, and sought instead to develop and use submarines as small (largely symbolic) transports, such as the "Deutschland" to bypass the British blockade, while at the same time attempting to detail units of the HSF to more traditional crusier warfare? Further, what if the USA adopted a strategy of armed neutrality and provided naval escorts for American shipping heading to ports of all combatant powers. IN such a situation, what would the RN do, and could this lead to loss of American lives?
 
Further, what if the USA adopted a strategy of armed neutrality and provided naval escorts for American shipping heading to ports of all combatant powers. IN such a situation, what would the RN do, and could this lead to loss of American lives?

Whoah. That would be a big escalation. Why would the US do that? If German cruisers are attacking US ships they might provide an escort, but then they'd be happy to hand over the merchies to the RN at the end of the journey; no animosity to create a shooting incident.

Maybe mis-identification of a US cruiser leading a convoy as a KM cruiser about to attack it by an RN cruiser about to take over as escort?

Come to think of it, weren't convoys adopted quite late in WWI? Hmm.

Maybe the Germans do start unrestricted submarine warfare. The RN puts out their Q-ships, and one of them, seeing a US cruiser approach, initially mis-identifies it as a German (fog, night, etc. as needed). The US cruiser catches a glimpse of weaponry or just thinks the ship is acting strangely, and assumes it is a disguised German surface raider. Someone panics, someone shoots (against or without orders), and the other shoots back.

That's the best I can offer, I'm afraid, and I still think it would end with apologies and reparations, not war.
 
Further, what if the USA adopted a strategy of armed neutrality and provided naval escorts for American shipping heading to ports of all combatant powers. IN such a situation, what would the RN do, and could this lead to loss of American lives?
The Royal Navy would point to a number of international agreements such as the 1856 Declaration of Paris, the 1909 London Declaration and the 1907 Hague convention which clarified the rights and responsibilities of neutral parties with regards to blockades and to which the United States had either agreed to adhere or fully ratified. It would further explain that, despite the shaky legal foundations for the blockade of the Confederacy in the American Civil War and the fact that it was not always maintained "by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy coastline", it had never exercised its right to void the blockade.

Certainly, adopting "armed neutrality" could potentially lead to the loss of American lives. However, given that the adoption of such a policy by the Americans would be, to all intents and purposes, declaring war on Britain, I don't think it'd matter that much by that stage.
 
Top