In the first instance, the US might assume that as a signatory on the Treaty of London, Britain might actually abide by the promises it had made. Folks on these boards are keen to highlight the leader of Germany prior to WW2 could not be trusted by anybody because of the promises he broke (with the British and French contrivance) prior to WW2, but the promises said leader broke (prior to 1939) did not result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. But sure, fact of life etc...
I like how you magically separate everything pre 1939 so that Hitlers actions before the invasion of Poland are somehow completely separate things that had nothing what so ever do with what happened next let alone the deaths of millions.
(leaving aside the German occupation of Czechoslovakia ended up with a fair number of deaths)
Let alone the fact that the British blockade was in response to German aggression and invasion of it's neighbours! Of course Hitler's broken promises involved invading his neighbours.
I continue to struggle to understand your claim the British strangling of neutral international shipping was in the best interests of the USA,
Read what I posted, Of course in a perfect world it wasn't! But if you think there's not going to be a blockade you are fooling yourself. The Americans however were not fooling themselves they knew the UK would blockade Germany. You can write what ever you think about the legality of that as much as you want (although I'm not clear on the argument see below) but it doesn't change that especially once the first 100 days have made it clear as to the stakes now in play it's going to happen. My point was the US co-operating with UK blockade in the reality of the situation at the time worked out for the US.
when the USA (together with Britain and the the civilized world) had signed the Treaty of London, which was clearly inconsistent with such British measures. It is scandalous enough to suggest Britain signed and promoted the Treaty of London with the intention to ignore its obligations, but the Treaty clearly favoured the interests of isolationist and neutral powers such as the US.
If you think for a minute that the US was ever going to trade freely with both sides at once you are kidding yourself. But the reality is the blockade was seen in the context of Germany invading through Belgium not in abstract i.e. that Germany and Co were the aggressors. This is why international perception was so key especially in the run up to and during the opening moves in 1914 and the German occupations, and not just the demands of the
Schlieffen Plan
The final shift to establishing the full blockade came on November 11, 1914, after several German light cruisers were observed attempting to lay mines off the coast of southern England. This act of aggression gave British leaders the impetus they needed to declare the full blockade without U.S. resistance because during the first four months of the war, Britain had confined itself to blocking only war materials from reaching German ports. World opinion of Germany during this time began to deteriorate because of repeated reports of brutality directed against Belgian and French civilians. With world sympathies firmly shifting in the Entente's favor, Britain gained the necessary advocacy it needed to declare its right to institute the blockade, and defend its realm against the aggressive German empire
Because as ever these kind of things are done within the context of what's going on, and not in abstract
Out of interest what is you argument that the Blockade was illegal by the Treaty of London? (do you mean the
London declaration of 1909?)
EDIT: I see from an earlier post that you are referring to the London Declaration of 1909 (let's face it there are already enough Treaties of London), which wasn't just not signed by the UK but not ratified by anyone else, it also has some interesting articles in it:
Art. 37. A vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage, even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination.
Again (by proxy), do you have a reference?
what that they'd compensate (i.e. buy) seized goods? seriously start at the wiki page and work up.
When American ships were stopped with contraband, the British purchased the entire cargo, and released the empty ship.[12]
Beyond isolated antidotes, I don't understand that to be the underlying method of British enforcement of the 'blockade'.
It wasn't, it was however enough to assuage US concerns. again see above. The standard here is not 'exactly what the US would like in a perfect world', but what was reasonable to expect during a world war. It did have some limitations of course, because obviously it isn't just a blanket "we'll buy anything afloat in the North sea", as you will just have everyone steaming into the North sea with a cargo and making itself known to the RN!
The US does not lose sales by insisting the Entente abide by the promises it made in respect of the Treaty of London. As has been discussed elsewhere, the Entente in most cases does not have viable alternatives to the US as a supplier for most of its war materials. Selling vast quantities of food for the consumption of CP civilians does not appear to be an unreasonable expectation or a political hot potato.
Again what promises in which Treaty of London do you mean?. And again if you really think that the US was ever going to trade freely with both sides of the war than you are kidding yourself
As outlined in other threads, from 1914 the US was mindful not to be tied to the Entente war effort, since that would be a threat to its status as a neutral.
and yet what happened
You appear to have something resembling khaki on your nose...
And how old are you? Also ironic considering you just equated the UK blockade of Germany to Hitler's desire for lebensraum and the eradication of several races
