WI US tried to be a neutral merchant during world wars?

[Vabasion]

The general idea is that US will not provide lend lease or any other benefits for free to any side in the conflict but at the same time it will sell anything to anyone be they British, Germans, Russians/Soviets Japanese etc and will insist to maintain trade with each of the warring nations, refusing blockades and insisting on their right to ply their trade.

First of I feel this would be stopped the moment US tried to reach Imperial Germany trough the blockade and would put it on a crash course against the Entente but on the other hand would they be willing to tangle with US and open another front? What economic and political effects could this have on US in the aftermath of the two world wars

 

[Garrison]

The general idea is that US will not provide lend lease or any other benefits for free to any side in the conflict but at the same time it will sell anything to anyone be they British, Germans, Russians/Soviets Japanese etc and will insist to maintain trade with each of the warring nations, refusing blockades and insisting on their right to ply their trade.

First of I feel this would be stopped the moment US tried to reach Imperial Germany trough the blockade and would put it on a crash course against the Entente but on the other hand would they be willing to tangle with US and open another front? What economic and political effects could this have on US in the aftermath of the two world wars

So why exactly has the USA decided to do this? Bear in mind this idea has been brought up many times without a truly convincing explanation being offered.

 

[vizzer]

So if the US is trying to run the blockade are they also prosecuting anti-submarine warfare to ensure free trade across the oceans?

 

[Vabasion]

So why exactly has the USA decided to do this? Bear in mind this idea has been brought up many times without a truly convincing explanation being offered.

Isolationism without shooting yourself in the foot by not trading with anyone pretty much. Or greed. Or anti British sentiments. I don’t remember an idea of US trading with everyone being brought forward. I do remember some of CP and even Axis US.

So if the US is trying to run the blockade are they also prosecuting anti-submarine warfare to ensure free trade across the oceans?

No. They’re saying we’re sending ships to Hamburg if you stop us well not trade with you or allow loans. We will also stop your ships near our waters.

 

[vizzer]

No. They’re saying we’re sending ships to Hamburg if you stop us well not trade with you or allow loans. We will also stop your ships near our waters.

So as in earlier wars the British intercept the merchants & buy up their cargoes - the US supplier has now been paid twice so is happy, the British have the cargo at cost so are happy, it's just a bunch of unhappy Germans who have sent gold or dollars to the US (somehow) and have nothing to show for it.

Of course if the US insists its vessels can travel freely then a lot of merchants may be re-flagged as US ships which then insist the USN escorts them through the war zone.

 

[Garrison]

Isolationism without shooting yourself in the foot by not trading with anyone pretty much. Or greed. Or anti British sentiments. I don’t remember an idea of US trading with everyone being brought forward. I do remember some of CP and even Axis US.

No. They’re saying we’re sending ships to Hamburg if you stop us well not trade with you or allow loans. We will also stop your ships near our waters.

Again especially in WWII why? Isolationism is not the same as wanting to be impartial between the Allies and Nazi Germany.

 

[Dorknought]

USA: We want and expect everyone to follow the rules
Germany: We follow the rules until they are not of an advantage to us .ie Belgium
GB: @ USA - we'll buy the stuff that you would have sold to Germany
USA: @ GB sure

 

[jsb]

No. They’re saying we’re sending ships to Hamburg if you stop us well not trade with you or allow loans. We will also stop your ships near our waters.

Will RN subs not simply conduct false flag attacks on anything in North Sea and blame others, as well as indiscriminate mining to close the area?

 

[Citycat]

1. The US blockaded its southern and eastern coastlines during the American Civil War and stopped foreign countries from trading. They already set a precedent, so to suddenly get up in arms about the British doing the same thing wouldn't fly.

2. The British were buying US goods in greater quantities and at higher prices, creating an economic boom that made the US richer and more powerful. Why would the US want to pursue something that ran contrary to its interests just for the moral high ground?

 

[vizzer]

A more legalistic way for the US to do this is to say they will sell to anyone but they need to use their own shipping to collect the goods i.e. cash & carry.
This way the US is not forced into trying to police the entire seas to enforce their isolationism.

 

[Arkenfolm]

A more legalistic way for the US to do this is to say they will sell to anyone but they need to use their own shipping to collect the goods i.e. cash & carry.
This way the US is not forced into trying to police the entire seas to enforce their isolationism.

There is a precedent with the late 18th century Leagues of Armed Neutrality. But in this case it would be the US, Spain, Portugal (before 1916), the Scandinavian states, the Netherlands, and the Latin American states which means the US is doing 99% of the work anyway.

 

[Garrison]

In WWI it might be possible for the US to remain more strictly neutral than OTL, but that will require no invasion of neutral Belgium, no USW, no use of slave labour (Yes Imperial Germany used slave labour from the occupied territories until international protests stopped them), and definitely no Zimmerman telegram. All of which is unlikely to say the least.

As for WWII having anything resembling OTL USA treating Britain and Nazi Germany equally and selling to both sides is beyond unlikely. The US didn't support the British because Roosevelt was an anglophile, but because it was in their strategic interests to do so. Also given the Nazi lack of gold and foreign currency reserves and the 'dumping' of Germany exports before the war how would the Nazis be able to buy anything? Who is going to trust them to stick to any deal they sign up to?

 

[Post]

As for WWII having anything resembling OTL USA treating Britain and Nazi Germany equally and selling to both sides is beyond unlikely. The US didn't support the British because Roosevelt was an anglophile, but because it was in their strategic interests to do so.

And because there was widespread support for it from the US voters. To change that you need to avoid the fall of France. Which most likely means the UK and France win the war in 1941 or 1942 (depending how bad Fall Gelb is going to go).

 

[Garrison]

And because there was widespread support for it from the US voters. To change that you need to avoid the fall of France. Which most likely means the UK and France win the war in 1941 or 1942 (depending how bad Fall Gelb is going to go).

Yeah to have the US behave in this manner there needs to a political and strategic context. And the most likely one is that in both wars the British and the French get a swift victory. I mean if there was a coup in Germany in 1938 because Hitler is determined to have war against all advice then maybe look more favourably on the successor state, WWII kicks off as some sort of anti-communist crusade so the USA happily supplies arms to Britain, France and Germany equally.

As for WWI again you need to radically change the context of the conflict to get the US to be genuinely even handed, which is asking a lot given the ham-fisted diplomacy of Kaiser Willhelm.

 

[Dorknought]

As for WWI again you need to radically change the context of the conflict to get the US to be genuinely even handed, which is asking a lot given the ham-fisted diplomacy of Kaiser Willhelm.

Dame Wilson (to P. C. Fisher): - "Oh, Constable! Don't hurt him. I'm sure he won't murder anyone else! "

America and the Blockade.
"Why Mr. Wilson should expect this country to refrain from exercising a right in return for Germany's refraining from committing wrongs is not very clear to the ordinary intelligence." - Daily Paper.

source: https://www.naval-history.net/WW1Book-Adm_Fisher-Memories.htm

 

[matzeskatze]

First of I feel this would be stopped the moment US tried to reach Imperial Germany trough the blockade and would put it on a crash course against the Entente but on the other hand would they be willing to tangle with US and open another front? What economic and political effects could this have on US in the aftermath of the two world wars

There are some very interesting points to be made here. Imo mostly regarding the Entente practices from the beginning of the war.
- Would the USA here acknowlage a distant blockade that includes neutrals as well? I am talking about Denmark, the Scandinavians and the Netherlands here.
- Would the USA submit to searches in Entente ports? Imo that was a novel way from the Entente to force neutral ships into their ports were pressure could be applied to sell to the Entente instead.
- Would the USA submit to the Entente contrabanding / blacklisting well everything realy?
- How open and insistant is the USA in its communications with both sides?

Because if the USA is more openly and loudly neutral then the Germans may know about this and can better taylor their responses. As I think may of the German misssteps in the war regarding the USA are because of lack of knowlage and indifferent to pro Entente signals. Such as little reaction to Entente missdeads and very loudly decrying the CP ones.

 

[DougM]

First off the US stopping someone from trading with rebellious US states is not the sane as GB blockading a different country.
Second the only way the US trades with Germany in WW1 is to develoup Teleportation. As the RN will stop and attempt at shipping.
Note pushing this to hard may very well result in the US going to war against GB.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

First off the US stopping someone from trading with rebellious US states is not the sane as GB blockading a different country.
Second the only way the US trades with Germany in WW1 is to develoup Teleportation. As the RN will stop and attempt at shipping.
Note pushing this to hard may very well result in the US going to war against GB.

Or refusing to sell anything to the Entente that isn't allowed through the blockade of Germany. There was a possibility of the 2nd one. The 1st one would probably require a POD in the 1890s, although a POD in the 1890s could still have WW1 in a recognizable form.

 

[Alternator]

The Royal Navy blockading Germany was, per the rules of war, perfectly fine - any other nation could complain about a distant blockade and have a point, but the United States had implemented a really leaky one against the Confederacy, and the British government recognized it.

Blockading neutrals was something the United States could justify complaints about, though it's hard to get the business interests all that riled up when the British were willing and able to pay for the cargoes anyway. You'd need your POD to involve pissing off a big shipping magnate, enough so that sticking it to the British in and of itself would motivate them.

 

[Vabasion]

The Royal Navy blockading Germany was, per the rules of war, perfectly fine - any other nation could complain about a distant blockade and have a point, but the United States had implemented a really leaky one against the Confederacy, and the British government recognized it.

Blockading neutrals was something the United States could justify complaints about, though it's hard to get the business interests all that riled up when the British were willing and able to pay for the cargoes anyway. You'd need your POD to involve pissing off a big shipping magnate, enough so that sticking it to the British in and of itself would motivate them.

US could do what it did in WW2 and declare certain sea zones under own protection etc. and actually engage both sides equally. Alternatively they could respond with sanctions. Britain without US money and imports is in a rough spot.